PAVUNNY Vs. ANNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants herein were defendants in OS No. 4/1978 on the file of the Additional District Court, Thrissur. THE suit was one for injunction restraining the defendants from passing off the Ayurvedic medical preparations of the defendants as those of the plaintiff, and for consequential reliefs.

(2.) THE Additional District Judge found that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree and accordingly decreed the suit. THE appellants herein filed AS No. 17/1988 before this court which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, on the ground of non production of the decree alone and not on the merits of the matter. THE said judgment is assailed in this appeal. THE appeal was dismissed as time barred by the learned Single Judge on a preliminary objection raised by the respondents that the appellants have not produced copy of the decree along with the appeal.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge then proceeded to consider the question whether the appeal which was filed without production of the copy of the decree is maintainable. It was found that once the decree is drawn, the last paragraph of the judgment drawn under R. 6a will cease to be a decree for the purpose of execution or for any other purpose. It was then considered whether the application filed under R. 148 for enlargement of time could be allowed or not. Ultimately it was held that there is gross delay in producing the decree, that by the time it was produced the appeal was time barred and therefore the appeal is not maintainable.