SANKARANARAYANAN NAMBOODIRIPPAD Vs. JOY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Counsel for the appellant in RSA Nos.1489/2011 and 351/2012 and the 1st respondent in RSA No.1098/2011 reported that he relinquished vakalath for his parties. Accordingly, as per Order dtd. 16/1/2025 the Registry was directed to issue notice to the appellant in RSA Nos.1489/2011 and 351/2012 and the 1st respondent in RSA No.1098/2011 by speed post. Notice to the said party is returned with the endorsement unclaimed. It is seen that in RSA No.351/2012 balance court fee is also not paid. Accordingly, R.S.A.No.1489/2011 and RSA No.351/2012 are liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

(2.) RSA No.1489/2011, 351/2012 and RSA No.1098/2011 arise from two suits- OS No. 341/1998 and 554/2002 which are disposed by the Trial Court by a common judgment along with counter claim in O.S No.341/1998. As per the common judgment of the Trial Court, the suits were dismissed and the counterclaim raised by the 1st defendant was allowed. The plaintiff in the suit filed appeals before the First Appellate Court challenging the judgments and decrees in both the suits and in the counterclaim. The First Appellate Court dismissed the challenge against the judgments and decrees in the suit but allowed the appeal with respect to the challenge against the judgment and decree in the counterclaim, setting aside the judgment and decree in the counterclaim in O.S No.341/1998. RSA No.1098/2011 is filed by the 1st defendant challenging the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court setting aside the judgment and decree in the counterclaim.

(3.) O.S No.341/1998 was filed by the plaintiff therein, one Joy, seeking permanent prohibitory injunction with respect to 11 acres in R.Sy.No.189/1 of Manissery Village in Ottappalam Taluk. O.S No.554/2002 is filed by the very same Joy for damages on the allegation that the defendants cut and removed trees from the very same plaint schedule property. In the counterclaim in O.S.No.341/1998, the 1st defendant, Sankaranarayanan Namboodiripad, claimed a permanent prohibitory injunction with respect to the very same plaint schedule property. Since RSA No. 1489/2011 and 351/2012 at the instance of the plaintiff are liable to be dismissed for nonprosecution, the question to be considered is with regard to the counter claim in OS No.341/1998.