BY AD v. SAJAN VARGHEESE K
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
second appeal stand dismissed
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. XLII r. 1
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Accordingly, this regular second appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to go with the FAO (RO). All interlocutory applications pending in this regular second appeal stand dismissed. SK Sd/- A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE
Judgment
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.1/DEFENDANT NO.1: VASUDEVAN AGED 49 YEARS S/O PONNAPPA MOOTHAN, PRANAVAM, KANNAKI NAGAR, MOOTHANTHARA, VADAKKANTHARA POST, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678102 BY ADVS. SAJAN VARGHEESE K. LIJU. M.P RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 9/PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS 2 TO 9: 1 2 3 4 5 RADHAKRISHNAN AGED 46 YEARS S/O PONNAPPA MOOTHAN, PRANAVAM, KANNAKI NAGAR, MOOTHANTHARA, VADAKKANTHARA POST, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678102 LEELA P AGED 53 YEARS W/O GOPALAN, 49/586,ARYAKULAM, KOZHIPPARA, VADAKKANTHARA POST, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678102 RATHNAM P AGED 51 YEARS W/O KUNJUNNI, AMBALATH HOUSE, JOURNALIST VILLAGE, PANCHAYAT ROAD JUNCTION,KUZHIVELIPPADY POST, EDATHALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683561 BABY P AGED 50 YEARS W/O KANAKARAJAN, 9/310, KANNAKI NAGAR, MOOTHANTHARA, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678012 SUJATHA P AGED 48 YEARS W/O BHASKARAN, 223/1+111, KANNAKI NAGAR, MOOTHANTHARA, R.S.A. No. 126 of 2024 2 6 7 8 9 KODUVAYUR POST, PALAKKAD., PIN - 678501 CHANDRAN AGED 63 YEARS S/O KUPPANKUTTY, 10/242, PIRAYIRI POST, AYYAPPANKAVU, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678004 RAJESH AGED 37 YEARS S/O CHANDRAN, 10/242, PIRAYIRI POST, AYYAPPANKAVU, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678004 RADHIKA AGED 34 YEARS D/O CHANDRAN, 10/242, PIRAYIRI POST, AYYAPPANKAVU, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678004 LATHIKA AGED 32 YEARS D/O CHANDRAN, 10/242, PIRAYIRI POST, AYYAPPANKAVU, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678004 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.S.A. No. 126 of 2024 3 JUDGMENT Dated this the 14th day of February, 2024 This regular second appeal has been filed under order XLII Rule 1 read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC” hereinafter) challenging the decree and judgment in A.S. No.22 of 2023 dated 13.11.2023 on the files of the Court of the District Judge, Palakkad arose from decree and judgment in O.S. No.278 of 2019 dated 22.12.2022 on the files of the Principal Munsiff Court, Palakkad.
The learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw this appeal, in view of filing of FAO (RO) under Order 43 Rule 1 (u) of CPC, the proper remedy available to the appellant. Permission granted.
Operative part
Accordingly, this regular second appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to go with the FAO (RO). All interlocutory applications pending in this regular second appeal stand dismissed. SK Sd/- A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: second appeal stand dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. XLII r. 1.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.