Thenamoochikal Haneefa vs Sulaiman
2023 Latest Caselaw 6888 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
                                &
         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
  THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 1ST ASHADHA, 1945
                       FAO NO. 137 OF 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.01.2016 IN I.A.NO.2480 OF 2015 IN
         O.S NO.89 OF 2010 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM
APPELLANT:

         THENAMOOCHIKAL HANEEFA
         S/O.SULAIMAN, PANAMANNA AMSOM,PATHAMKULAM DESOM,
         OTTAPALAM TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

         BY ADV.
         SRI.P.JAYARAM



RESPONDENT:

         SULAIMAN
         S/O.THENAMOOCHIKAL ALAVI,PANAMANNA AMSOM,
         PATHAMKULAM DESOM,PANAMANNA.P.O.,
         OTTAPALAM TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679 501.

         BY ADV.
         SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR



     THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 22.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
                                   2
FAO No.137 of 2016


                         JUDGMENT

Anil K.Narendran, J.

The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.89 of 2010 on the file

of the Sub Court, Ottapalam, which was one filed against the

respondent herein-defendant, who is none other than his father,

for specific performance of a contract.

2. On 18.06.2015, when this suit was listed for trial, the

plaintiff filed I.A.No.1247 of 2015 to remove the case from the list.

That petition was dismissed and thereafter, the suit was also

dismissed for default. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.2480 of 2015,

invoking the provisions under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 seeking an order to restore that suit. That

application ended in dismissal by the order dated 11.01.2016,

which is under challenge in this appeal filed invoking the provisions

under Order XLIII Rule 1(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,

along with C.M.Application No.295 of 2016 to condone the delay

of 35 days.

3. On 06.06.2016, this Court issued urgent notice before

admission to the respondent.

4. On 19.06.2023, it was reported that the respondent-

FAO No.137 of 2016

defendant, the father of the appellant, is no more.

5. Today, when this matter is taken up for consideration,

the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that since the

respondent-defendant is no more, the appellant-plaintiff does not

want to prosecute this appeal further.

Recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned

counsel for the appellant, this appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

Sd/-

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE PV