IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 SA.No.103 of 1994 (D) --------------------------- AS.6/1984 of ADDL.SUB COURT,ATTINGAL OS.157/1980 of MUNSIFF COURT,ATTINGAL .................... APPELLANT IN S.A./RESPONDENT NO.1/DEFENDANT NO.1: -------------------------------------------------------------------- * PALPAN RAMAN, POIKAVILA VEEDU, KIZHUVILAM DESOM AND VILLAGE- HAVING ALSO, THONNAKKAL THAYIVILAKATHU VEEDU, EDAKKODU DESOM, EDAKKODU VILLAGE. [DIED L.R.S IMPLEADED] BY ADV. SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNON SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. ADDL. A.2:- LEKSHMYKUTTY AMMA, POIKAVILA VEEDU, PARAYATTUKONAM, EDAKKODU DESOM, MAMOM, ATTINGAL, TRIVANDRUM. ADDL. A.3:- SOMAN -DO- -DO- ADDL. A.4:- BABU, -DO- -DO- ADDL. A.5:- AMBIKA KUMARI, -DO- -DO- ADDL. A.6:- ASOKAN, -DO- -DO- ADDL. A.7:- MOLY, -DO- -DO- ADDL. A.8:- RAJU, -DO- -DO- * [THE SOLE APPELLANT DIED AND LRs ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS 2 TO 8 AND ADDL. RESPONDENT NO.12 AS PER ORDER DT.07/01/02 ON C.M.P. NO.10/02] SA.No.103 of 1994 (D) -2- RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS AND RESPONDENTS 2 TO 9/PLAINTIFFS 2 TO 4, DEFENDANT NO.2, 1ST PLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFFS 5 TO 10: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 1. APPI CHELLAMMA, MELEKOCHU VEEDU, KIZHUVILAM, DESOM AND VILLAGE HAVING ALSO THONNAKKAL THAIYIVILAKATHU VEEDU, EDAKKODU DESOM, EDAKKODU VILLAGE. [DIED; LRs IMPLEADED] ** 2. APPI BHAVANI OF -DO -DO- [DIED; LRs IMPLEADED] 3. APPI KAMALAKSHI OF -DO- -DO- 4. APPI BHARGAVI, MELEKOCHU VEEDU, KOZHUVILAM DESOM AND VILLAGE. 5. APPI LAKSHMY, MELEKOCHU VEEDU, KUZHIVILAM DESOM AND VILLAGE HAVING ALSO THONNAKKAL THAIYIVILAKATHU VEEDU, EDAKKODU DESOM AND VILLAGE. 6. NARAYANI KALLYANI OF -DO -DO- 7. KUNJAN GOPINATHAN OF -DO- -DO- 8. KALLYANI VIJAYAMMA OF -DO- -DO- 9. KUNJAN DEVADASAN OF -DO- -DO- 10. KUNJAN SATHYARAJAN OF -DO- -DO- 11. KUNJAN PUSHPANGATHAN OF -DO- -DO- Θ ADDL. R12 : R. THULASI, POST BOX NO.254, AL.ULA, MADINA, MANAVARA, KSA. ADDL. R13: K. SUKUMARAN ALIAS THANBI OF -DO- -DO- ADDL. R14: SUBASHINI C., ASHARIVILAKOM VEEDU, KIZHUVILAM P.O., MAMOM. ADDL. R15: K. SUDHAKARAN, KALIYILUVILA VEEDU, PARAYATHU KONAM P.O., MAMOM. ADDL.R16: K. SURENDRAN, THOPPIL VEEDU, ATTINGAL P.O. ATTINGAL. SA.No.103 of 1994 (D) -3- ADDL. R17: K. SUDEVAN OF -DO- -DO- ADDL. R18: SUDHA C., KOCHU VEEDU, PARAYATHUKONAM P.O., ALSO THUNNAKKAL MAMOM. ADDL. R19 AMBIKA C. OF DO. DO. ADDL. R20: MANIYAN M., KONATHU VEEDU, PARAYATHU KONAM, MAMOM P.O. ADDL. R21: UDAYAN M., THODIYIL VEEDU, PARAYATHU KONAM, MAMOM P.O. ADDL. R22: SUMAGI, THANDULAVILA VEEDU, -DO- -DO-. ADDL. R23: SUSEELA, THENGUVILA VEEDU, -DO- -DO-. ADDL. R24: RAGHUMANI, CHAMAVILA VEEDU OF -DO- -DO-. ADDL. R25: VIMALA, THODIYIL VEEDU, -DO- -DO-. ADDL. R26: SASIKALA KUMARI, -DO- -DO-. ADDL. R27: SARALA, -DO- -DO-. Θ [ADDL. R12 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.07/01/02 ON C.M.P. NO.10/02] # [ADDL. RESPONDENTS 13 TO 19 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED FIRST RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DT.26/08/08 ON C.M.P. NO.1331/1999] ** [ADDL. RESPONDENTS 20 TO 27 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED SECOND RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DT.26/08/08 ON C.M.P. NO.1332/1999] BY ADV. SRI.M.P.RAMNATH SRI.S.SUBRAMONIA SARMA SRI.M.P.RAMNATH SRI.G.P.SHINOD THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ S. A. No.103 of 1994 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT A statement has been filed in this appeal by counsel for the respondents 7, 12, 13, 15 to 28 and 32 to 34 reporting that respondents 1 to 7, 9, 27, 33, 35 and 36 have expired. No step has been taken by the appellant to implead the L.Rs of deceased respondents 6, 7, 9, 27, 33, 35 and 36. It is worthy to note that reference to all respondents after respondent No.12 is based on their status in the relevant impleadment applications filed to implead L.Rs of respondents 1 to 5. 2. I have today dismissed C.M.P.1326/99 seeking for amendment of cause title of the appeal deleting name of the fifth respondent who passed away before filing of the Second Appeal and to implead the L.Rs as additional respondents 33 to 36 as also C.M.P.1325/99 S. A. No.103 of 1994 -2- seeking for condonation of delay of 2088 days in filing appeal as against respondents 33 to 36; C.M.P.1334/99 seeking to implead L.Rs of deceased R3 as additional respondents 27 to 29; C.M.P.1328/99 to set aside abatement of the appeal consequent on death of R3 and C.M.P.1327/99 seeking for condonation of delay of 1812 days in filing petition to set aside abatement; C.M.P.1335/99 to implead L.Rs of deceased fourth respondent as additional respondents 30 to 32; C.M.P.1330/99 to set aside abatement caused by death of fourth respondent and C.M.P.1329/99 to condone delay in applying to set aside abatement, all for reason of default of the appellant in taking steps. 3. It is worthy to note that this Court has vide order dt.15/11/07 directed to take steps for notice being issued to the additional parties sought to be impleaded and S. A. No.103 of 1994 -3- on whom notices have not been served within 10 days ordering further that if steps are not taken, the case shall be posted for disposal to 28/11/07. A learned Judge of this Court thereafter also on 03/03/08 granted two weeks' time to file necessary applications for impleading. All the same, he also passed an order on the following lines:- “The appeal is of the year 1994. Several parties died during the pendency of the Second Appeal. Even now the Second Appeal is not ripe. It is a fit case where the parties can explore the possibility of settlement before the Adalath.” 4. Accordingly, the case was posted before the Adalath. As the Adalath could not consider the matter for reason of non impleadment of the L.Rs of the deceased respondents, the matter was sent back. The office has posted this case in the hearing list as if this is a ripe Second Appeal for S. A. No.103 of 1994 -4- hearing. The counsel for the appellant has not turned up. I do not find any reason why this Second Appeal of 1994 is to be retained on file any further as no one is interested to see that steps are taken to complete service; to have the L.Rs of the deceased respondents impleaded and to have the appeal heard. 5. In the result, I dismiss this Second Appeal. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-