IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2008 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 8923 of 2008(K) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN E.P.NO.31/2005 IN OS.517/2002 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ CICILY LONAKUTTY, W/O.LATE LONAKUTTY @ THARAKAN JOHNY, AGED 43, THARALKAN HOUSE, PARAVATTANI, OLLUKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENT: ------------- LOOSY, D/O.MANJALI CHAKOO AND W/O. PANJATTUPARAMBILI ALMA, KANNAMBATHUR DESOM, THURAVOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 8923 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Irinjalakuda, in EA 396/07 in EP 31/05 in OS 517/02. It is a money decree wherein the legal representatives of the decree holder wants to continue the proceedings. This position has been considered by this court in the decision reported in Joseph K. Mathai v. Luckose Kurian [AIR 1979 Kerala 235] and Valli v. Madhavan [1970 KLJ 312] and has taken the view that even for a proceeding by the legal representatives, the succession certificate is necessary. Therefore, I do not find any mistake committed by the court below in passing such an order. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. But I make it clear that sufficient time has to be given to the petitioner for production of the same and not to dismiss it for default on that ground. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps