Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NARAYANANKUTTY, S/O. VILASINI AMMA versus SIVARAMAN S/O. PANANGATTIL KUTTAN

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


NARAYANANKUTTY, S/O. VILASINI AMMA v. SIVARAMAN S/O. PANANGATTIL KUTTAN - WP(C) No. 18083 of 2004(C) [2007] RD-KL 10008 (11 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 18083 of 2004(C)

1. NARAYANANKUTTY, S/O. VILASINI AMMA,
... Petitioner

2. MEENAKSHY AMMA, D/O. VILASINI AMMA,

3. PADMINI, D/O. VILASINI AMMA,

4. RADHIKA, D/O. VILASINI AMMA,

Vs

1. SIVARAMAN S/O. PANANGATTIL KUTTAN,
... Respondent

2. VILASINI AMMA D/O. PARUKUTTY AMMA

3. UNNIKRISHNAN S/O. VILASINI AMMA,

4. INDIRA D/O. VILASINI AMMA,

5. SIVANANDAN S/O. VILASINI AMMA,

For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU

For Respondent :SMT.SHYLAJA VARGHESE

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :11/06/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

W.P.(C) No. 18083 OF 2004

Dated this the 11th day of June, 2007



JUDGMENT

Exts.P1 and P2 orders of dismissal passed by the learned Munsiff respectively on an application for leave under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC to sue the 1st respondent representing the entire people of the locality who are interested in the subject matter and seeking consequential amendments are under challenge. The writ petition is remaining defective for want of service of notice to the 1st respondent. It is seen as on a reading of Ext.P1 that the first defendant is abroad and one of his contentions in the petitions was that he is abroad and he is not at all interested in representing the people of the locality. It is accepting that contention that the learned Munsiff passed Ext.P1 and consequently passed Ext.P2 also. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it became necessary to file petition for leave under Order 1 Rule 8 only because of the contention raised by the respondent that the suit as filed is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and that the disputed pathway is under use by the entire people of the locality. Albeit the above contention, the same will not be justification for impleading an unwilling defendant who WPC No.18083 of 2004 2 is not in India to represent the entire people in the locality. I do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the court below. Challenge against Exts.P1 and P2 will fail. The Writ Petition will stand dismissed as above.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

btt WPC No.18083 of 2004 3


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.