Rama Panicker Divakara Panicker Of ... vs Bakari Hydrose, Chennampilly And Ors. on 18 December, 1989
A dismissal in the absence of a party and not covered by the explanation to Rule 2 cannot come under Rule 3 simply because it was written on the merits by discussing the issues and evidence, if any (M. V. George v. S. M. R. Traders, 1980 Ker LT307 : (AIR 1980 Kerala 100)). Likewise, a decision falling under Rule 3 will not become one under Rule 2 simply because the Court has not written a detailed judgment considering the issues and evidence.