Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ABNU C. VETTATH, S/O.VARKEY VETTATH versus V.EAPEN MATHAI, AGED ABOUT 60

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


ABNU C. VETTATH, S/O.VARKEY VETTATH v. V.EAPEN MATHAI, AGED ABOUT 60 - CRP No. 775 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 16046 (20 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP No. 775 of 2007()

1. ABNU C. VETTATH, S/O.VARKEY VETTATH,
... Petitioner

2. MARIYAMMA ABNU, AGED 69 YEARS,

3. GEORGE A. VETTATH, AGED 45 YEARS,

4. THOMAS A.VETTATH, AGED 41 YEARS,

5. SUSAN PLATTO ALIAS, AGED 49 YEARS,

6. ELIZABETH ALEXANDER,

Vs

1. V.EAPEN MATHAI, AGED ABOUT 60,
... Respondent

2. JOHN MATHAI VETTATH,

3. MARIYAMMA ALIAS KOCHUMARIYAMMA,

4. ELIZABETH JOHN VETTATH,

5. MATHAI JOHN VETTATH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

6. EAPEN JOHN VETTATH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

7. GEORGE JOHN VETTATH,

8. MRS.MARY THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

For Petitioner :SRI.P.GEORGE WILLIAM

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

Dated :20/08/2007

O R D E R

M.N.KRISHNAN, J.

C.R.P.No. 775 OF 2007

Dated this the 20th August, 2007.

O R D E R

This revision petition is preferred against the order of the III Additional Munsiff, Ernakulam in I.A.9958/06 in O.S.1932/90. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that he moved an application for impleadment of additional defendants 4 to 8 in the suit. Notice was ordered and they remained ex parte. There was also a connected case where also the same impleadment application was filed but the court allowed the application and ordered notice. Therefore, when an application for amendment was moved in the other case it was allowed. But in this case there is a practical difficulty. The court should have bestowed its attention before final disposal of the matter. The court is now right in holding that it cannot implead parties after disposal of the matter. But at the same time the plaintiff need not be put into trouble for no fault of his. There was a duty cast upon the court as well to dispose of the impleading application before finally disposing of the matter. The court was aware of this fact because in the joint trial suit the petition was allowed. So in order to avoid unnecessary difficulty to the parties, I direct the court below to entertain a review C.R.P.775/07 2 application, if it is filed of course with notice to the respondents 4 to 8 and thereafter correct the judgment because it will be an error apparent on the face of the record which the court is bound to correct especially in the light of them being in the party array in the suit where joint trial is allowed and disposed of. With this liberty to the revision petitioner this C.R.P is dismissed and I also direct the court below to consider sympathetically the time lag that has occasioned for filing the review application because it is a matter the court should have done before disposing of the application. M.N.KRISHNAN Judge jj


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.