ARUKANDI KISHAKKEDATH VASUDEVAN Vs. NALLAKANDI ARUKANDI HYMA VASUDEVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is filed as early as on 19/06/2003, about eight years back. It arises from a partition suit of the year 1994. The appeal was filed with certain defects and it was hence, returned for curing the defects and re - presenting the same. Thereafter, it was only after about one year, on 06/07/2004 that the appeal was moved for admission. Another bench of this Court issued 'notice before admission'. It is thus, evident that this Court thought it fit to hear all the parties, even before admission of this appeal.

(2.) Though notice was ordered by this Court, in the 2004 itself, appellant again defaulted, and process was defective. Hence, notice could not be sent to respondents. The defect was not cured by appellant, even after expiry of about five long years. The appeal was posted on 29/05/2009, in the light of a letter dated 22/04/2009 sent by appellant to Hon'ble Chief Justice, seeking early posting, stating that he is a retired IPS officer, a senior citizen aged 80 years (now 82) etc. When the appeal was called on 29/05/2009, two weeks time was granted by this Court to cure defect. Years passed. After about two years, again on 20/06/2011, this appeal was posted before Court when it was noticed that service was not complete on respondents nos. 5, 6, 17 to 22, 24 to 26.

(3.) This Court directed appellant to take steps immediately and the case was posed to the next week. On 03/06/2011 again, two weeks' further time was granted by this Court, to cure the defect. The appeal again came up on 24/06/2011. Again, two weeks further time was granted to cure the defect. Today, when this appeal is again posted, appellant's counsel submitted that a petition is filed for declaration of 'service' on all the respondents who are not served. But, a reading of the affidavit and the petition reveals that the petition is not for declaring 'service' of notice to respondents.