IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1932 SA.No. 650 of 2002() -------------------- AS.482/1990 of III ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM OS.283/1998 of PRL.M.C.,NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPS.1, 5, 6 & 7/DFNTS./L.H OF 1ST DFNT.& LH. OF R2 IN A.S: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. LOYIS M.BABY, KUZHIVILA VEEDU, VADAKODE DESOM, PERUMPAZHATHOOR VILLAGE, PERUMPAZHATHOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA (L.R. OF THE 1ST DEFENDANT). 2. VILASINI YOHANNAN, KUZHIVILA VEEDU, VADAKKEDU DESATHU, PERUMPAZHATHUR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. 3. SANTHOSH ALIAS STANLEY, KUZHIVILA VEEDU, VADAKKEDU DESATHU, PERUMPAZHATHUR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. 4. SREE PAPPU, KUZHIVILA VEEDU, VADAKKEDU DESOM, PERUMPAZHATHUR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. (APPELLANTS 5 TO 7 ARE LRS. OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN A.S). BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SRI.K.HARILAL RESPONDENT(S)/APLNTS & R3 & 4 IN AS.& DEFNT.4 & ADDL.5TH DEFNT.: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ANTHRAYOSE K.VIJAYAMOHAN, APPIYATH PUTHEN VILA VEEDU, ANAYARA DESOM, KADAKAMPALLI VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. AVASA CHRISTAVA SUPPRASITHA SAMUDAYAVIKASANA CORPORATION, KOTTAYAM-1, KERALA STATE, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR. S.A.NO.650/2002 3. MARY M.V.GEETHA KUMARY, PONGUVILA VEEDU, NEAR I.T.I., DHANUVACHAPURAM DESOM, MEKOLLA DESOM, KOLLAYIL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN FOR R SRI.P.J.JOSEPH FOR R SRI.GEORGE MATHEW FOR R SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN FOR R SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM FOR R2 THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.M.P.NO.2064 OF 2002 IN S.A.NO.650 OF 2002 & S.A.NO.650 OF 2002 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of November, 2010 O R D E R Preliminary decree and judgment passed in a suit for declaration and partition with consequential reliefs is challenged with a petition to condone the delay of 177 days in filing the appeal. Notice was ordered to the respondents. After service of notice, taking note that the appeal had been presented as early in 2002, the Registry was directed to verify and report the present stage of the suit. It has been reported that pending the appeal before this Court with the delay petition, final decree passed in the suit had already been executed. In the light of the report collected by the Registry, as indicated above, I find the petition for condonation of delay does not require any consideration, and it is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.M.P.NO.2064 OF 2002 IN S.A.NO.650 OF 2002 & S.A.NO.650 OF 2002 ----------------------------------- O R D E R 9th day of November, 2010