LAWS(KER)-2012-5-212

THAYALE VALAPPIL KUNHIKANNAN Vs. KAIPPAN PLAKKAL ROSAMMA

Decided On May 21, 2012
THAYALE VALAPPIL KUNHIKANNAN,S/O.MADHAVI, VAYAKKARA AMSOM AND NARAMBA DESOM, P.O.VAYAKKARA, TALIPARAMBA TALUK NOW RESIDING AT PERINGALA, CHITTADI P.O.,ALAKODE VIA., KANNUR Appellant
V/S
KAIPPAN PLAKKAL ROSAMMA, W/O.KAIPPAN PLAKKAL ABRAHAM, AGRICULTURIST, PADIYOTTUCHAL P.O. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession on title and for other ancillary reliefs. THE suit has had a chequered career. THE suit was initially dismissed on merits which was set aside in appeal and remanded. THE suit was subsequently decreed on merits which was again set aside and remanded. THE suit after two remands was pending in the court below when it happened to be dismissed for default on 06.11.2003.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed I.A. No. 2589/2003 under Order IX Rule IX CPC on 05.12.2003 itself which has been dismissed by Ext.P2 order and confirmed by Ext.P10 judgment in CMA No. 11/2009. THE reason stated by the trial court is that the name of the Doctor who treated the plaintiff for back ache has not been stated in the application for restoration. THE reason stated by the appellate court is that the plaintiff had subsequently filed two other applications (I.A. Nos. 997/2006 and 998/2006) for restoration of the suit after condonation of delay and that the second set of applications filed were barred by resjudicata.

(3.) THE Original Petition is disposed of as above. No costs.