IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 4439 of 2008(C) ------------------------- OS.476/2004 of II ADDL.M.C.,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ SUBHASHINI, D/O.LATE AMMANATH NARAYANAN, EZHUTHASSAN & W/O.C.K.RAGHUNATHA KUMAR, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, PERINCHERI P.O., OLLUR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.N.P.SAMUEL RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. A.N.BALAKRISHNAN, AMMANATH HOUSE, EDAKKULAM, P.O.THANGALLUR, MULANKUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR. 2. SMT.A.N.RAJALEKSHMI, D/O.LATE AMMANATH NARAYANAN EZHUTHASSAN, AND W/O.DEVARAJAN, ELAVATHUR HOUSE, PUTTEKKARA, P.O.ANJUR, THRISSUR DIST. 3. SMT.A.N.ANANDAVALLY, W/O.C.K.DEVADAS, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.PERINCHERI, OLLUR, THRISSUR. 4. SMT.A.N.GEETHA, W/O.NARENDRAN, AVILISSERY HOUSE, P.O.PERINCHERY, OLLUR, THRISSUR. 5. PADMAJA, W/O.VISWANATHAN, T.C.NO.43/599, ISRO COLONY, KAMALESWARAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 9. 6. DEEPAK, S/O.VISWANATHAN, T.C.NO.43/599, ISRO COLONY, KAMALESWARAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 9. 7. VANI, D/O.VISWANATHAN, T.C.NO.43/599, ISRO COLONY, KAMALESWARAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 9. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.4439/08 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER IN I.A.No.9070/06 IN O.S.No.467/04 OF THE 11 ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR DATED 5.11.2007. EXT.P2: PHTOOCPY OF ORDER IN I.A.No.9082/06 IN O.S.No.476/04 OF THE 11 ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR, DTD.5.11.2007. EXT.P3: PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER IN I.A.No.9080/06 IN O.S.No.476/04 OF THE II ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR DATED 5.11.2007. EXT.P4: PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER IN I.A.No.9081/06 IN O.S.No. 476/04 OF THE II ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR DATED 5.11.2007. TRUE COPY M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 4439 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred challenging Exts. P1 to P4 orders. The 2nd defendant died during the pendency of the suit. An application was filed to implead his legal representatives with a petition to set aside the abatement and to condone the delay of 120 days in filing the application. The court below dismissed that application stating that there is no merit and consequentially dismissed other Interlocutory Applications as well. The entire suit has not abated for the reason that the other defendants are already there in the party array. The court below should have been very liberal in these type of cases rather than having a technical approach. 2. Therefore, I set aside the orders passed by the court below in IA Nos. 9079, 9082, 9080 and 9081 of 2006 and direct the court below to consider those matter afresh sympathetically. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps