SATHYAKKAL AMINAKUTTY Vs. THRIKKANASSERI KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS in O.S.No.295 of 1994 of the Munsiff Court, Tirur, are the appellants. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.200 of 1996 of the Sub Court, Tirur. Suit is filed for permanent injunction. The trial court held that the plaintiffs have not proved possession of the plaint schedule property on the date of suit. The suit was dismissed with costs. The lower appellate court dismissed the appeal in limine. Parties hereinafter are referred to as the plaintiffs and defendant as arrayed in the suit.

(2.) THE plaintiffs and defendant adduced oral and documentary evidence. PW1, DWs 1 & 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A7, B1 to B7 and C1 to C3 are marked.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the dismissal of the appeal in limine, even without calling for the records or perusing the evidence has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. THE learned counsel submitted that the case was contested very seriously, that the plaintiffs adduced evidence in support of their case, that the trial court framed necessary issues, heard the arguments on both sides and decided the case on merits. THE lower appellate court in the first appeal failed to issue notice to the respondents and proceeded to dismiss the appeal stating that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellants. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, they have raised valid and tenable ground in the appeal, therefore, the summary dismissal of the appeal is liable to be set aside.