IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 5TH ASWINA 1932 RSA.No. 1034 of 2010() ---------------------- AS.107/2007 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA OS.35/2006 of SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... APPELANT/PLAINTIFF -------------------------------------- C.M.VARGHESE,AGED 71 YEARS, S/O.MAMMAN,CALIPSO CHANDRAVIUTHIYIL HOUSE, PALIAKKARA MURI,THIRUVALLA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.RAJEEV V.KURUP RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. S.KODER PRIVATE LTD,COMPANY,HEAD OFFICE, M.G.ROAD,P.B.NO.7,TRIVANDRUM,695 035,REP;BY ITS CHAIRMAN SUNNY VARKEY,VARKEY'S BUNGLOW,TC 4/333, KAWADIAR,AMBALA NAGAR,TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 2. S.KODER PRIVATE LTD,M.R.ROAD,TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR AMMINI VARKEY, VARKEY'S BUNGLOW,T.C.4/333, KAWADIAR,AMBALA NAGAR, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 3. JOHNSON JOHN,UNIQUE AGENCIES, VAYALIKKOLLOOTHU VEEDU,KURAVANKONAM.P.O,KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. 4. S.KODER PRIVATE LTD,M.G.ROAD,TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR ABI GEORGE, TC 4/335,VARKEY VILLA,KAWADIAR,AMBALA NAGAR, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING CAME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/09/2010 ALONG WITH R.S.A No.1041/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- R.S.A Nos.1034 AND 1041 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of September 2010 JUDGMENT Three suits were disposed by a common judgment by the Sub Court, Thiruvalla. Such suits were O.S No.111/2001, O.S No.31/2003 and O.S No.35/2006. Against the decision rendered in O.S No.111/2001 and O.S No.35/2006, the appellant herein preferred two appeals as A.S No.106/2007 and A.S No.107/2007 before the District Court, Pathanamthitta. The decision in the other suit O.S No.31/2003 which was also adverse to the appellant was challenged by him by way of an appeal before this court as R.F.A No.445/2007 since the valuation of such suit required presentation of such appeal as indicated. The above first appeal preferred before this court, R.F.A No.445/2007, is stated to be pending after being admitted and taken on file. Meanwhile, the other two appeals, A.S No.106/2007 and A.S No.107/2007 arising from the common judgment were heard and disposed of by the lower appellate court confirming the decision of the court below by dismissing such appeals. The above two second appeals have been preferred against the decision rendered by the lower appellate court in the common judgment dismissing A.S No.106/2007 and A.S No.107/2007. Learned counsel for the R.S.A Nos.1034 AND 1041 OF 2010 - 2 - appellant submitting that though the first appeal (R.F.A No.445/2007) is still pending, its prosecution further having been prejudicially affected by the decision rendered by the lower appellate court in the two appeals arising from the common judgment disposing of all three suits, requested for withdrawing these appeals to seek review and setting aside of the common judgment rendered by the lower appellate court, which is impugned in the above appeals, and after such review, if so allowed, transmission of such appeals for consideration with the first appeal pending before this court. So far as the request for withdrawal of the appeals in the circumstance indicated above, I find no hurdle, but, with respect to the entitlement of the appellant to seek review of the judgments, after the court below havd dismissed the appeal on merits, that is a matter to be considered by the lower appellate court in accordance with law, over which I am not expressing any opinion at all. Both the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to the right of the appellant, if any, to seek review of the judgment impugned, if so provided by law. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// vdv P.A to Judge