Olarikkara Investment And Hire ... vs P.C.Francis
2021 Latest Caselaw 1171 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR

   TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 22TH POUSHA, 1942

                        RFA.No.606 OF 2008

          OS 354/2004 OF I ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR


APPELLANT/S:

               OLARIKKARA INVESTMENT AND HIRE PURCHASE
               (P) LTD., OLARIKKARA DESOM, ARANATTUKARA VILLAGE,,
               THRISSUR TALUK.

               BY OLARIKKARA INVESTMENT AND HIRE PURCHASE(P)
               LTD. (PARTY)

RESPONDENT/S:

      1        P.C.FRANCIS, S/O PAREKKATTIL CHACKO,
               OLARIKKARA DESOM, ARANATTUKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR
               TALUK.

      2        CHACKO, SO.PAREKKATTIL VAREEDH
               OLARIKKARA DESOM, ARANATTUKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR
               TALUK.

      3        VERONICCA, W/O.CHACKO
               OLARIKKARA DESOM, ARANATTUKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR
               TALUK.

      4        K.K.NARAYANAN, AGED 63 YEARS
               S/O.KALARIKKAL KRISHNANKUTTY, OLARIKKARA DESOM,
               ARANATTUKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.

      5        DIMPLE FRANCIS
               W/O.PAREKKATTIL P.C.FRANCIS,, OLARIKKARA DESOM,
               ARANATTUKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.

               R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN

     THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RFA.No.606 OF 2008

                                ..2..



                              JUDGMENT

Service is not complete on respondents 1 and 5.

The 4th respondent is represented. After the

learned counsel for the appellant having expired,

the appellant company is not represented before

this Court. The Balance Court Fee has also not

been paid.

2. In the above circumstances, this Court directed

the Registry to issue notice to the appellant

company to arrange to pay the Balance Court Fee

and complete steps against the unserved

respondents. Accordingly, notice was issued. The

notice was received by the appellant. However,

there is no representation for the appellant.

Hence, the RFA is liable to be dismissed for non

prosecution.

In the result, the RFA stands dismissed for non

prosecution.

Sd/-

N.ANIL KUMAR

JUDGE Bka/12.01.2021