High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
P.V. ABDUL KHADER v. JAM IYYATHU ATHBAYI NAKSHABANDIYA - CRP No. 33 of 2007  RD-KL 1933 (24 January 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMCRP No. 33 of 2007()
1. P.V. ABDUL KHADER,
2. C. KAMARUNNEESA, D/O.C. SEETHI,
3. C. SEETHI, S/O. ABDULKHADER,
4. C. SUHARA, D/O.C. SEETHI,
5. C. MARIYAM D/O.C. SEETHI,
6. C. SALIKATH, D/O.C. SEETHI,
7. C. JASMIN, D/O.C. SEETHI,
8. C. HASIM S/O.C. SEETHI,
1. JAM IYYATHU ATHBAYI NAKSHABANDIYA,
2. P.V. SHAHUL HAMEED, S/O.SYED HASSAN
3. B.C. ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O.AHAMMAD,
For Petitioner :SRI.E.R.VENKATESWARAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J............................................ CRP No.33 OF 2007 ............................................
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2007
ORDERThis revision petition is filed challenging the order in I.A.409 of 2006 in O.S.749 of 2002 on the file of Munsiff Court, Kozhikode-II. The application was dismissed holding that second plaintiff died on 24.9.2005 and the application to implead legal heirs was filed only on 11.1.2006 and petitioner has not filed an application to condone the delay.
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner pointed out that one of the legal heirs of deceased plaintiff is already in the party array. It is not disputed. Therefore there cannot be an abatement when at least one of the legal heirs to be impleaded is already in the party array. Consequently there is no necessity to file an application to condone the delay. This aspect was not disputed by learned cousnel appearing for respondent. Hence the revision is 2 allowed. The order dated I.A.20.9.2006 in I.A.409 of 2006 is set aside. The application stands allowed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGElgk/-
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.