IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2008 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 1146 of 2008(J) ------------------------- RCOP.40/2005 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ KARUPPAKKATHAYYAMMA ,AGED 80, W/O. LATE P.K.S.KUMARASWAMY,VAYYAMUKKU PURAYIDOM KOTTAKKAKOM WARD, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. PRADEEP NAICK, AGED 46, S/O.RAMANATHA BHATTAR,RESIDING AT VAYYAMUKKU HOUSE KOTTAKKAKOM WARD, KOLLAM. 2. K.J.RAMAN AGED 56, S/O.LATE KUMARASWAMY, TC NO. 27/963,OPPOSITE TO NATIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MEENADEVI, AGED 53,D/O. LATE P.K.S.KUMARASWAMY,VAYYAMUKKU PURAYIDOM, KOTTAKKAKOM WARD, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN SRI.M.T.SURESH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 1146/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - PHOTO COPY OF THE COMPROMISE PETITION DATED 18.09.2006 IN RCOP NO.40/2005 OF THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROL COURT, KOLLAM. EXT.P2 - PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.09.2007 OF THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER, KOLLAM IN I.A. NO.655/2007 IN RCOP NO.40/2005. RESPONDENTS' EXTS. EXT.R1(a) – TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.655/2007 DATED JANUARY, 2007 IN RCOP NO.40/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 1146 OF 2008-J ----------------------------------------- Dated 7th March, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner was one of the respondents in R.C.P. No.40/2005 before the Rent Controller. The petition was allowed based on Ext.P1 compromise arrived at between the parties. The petitioner who is a signatory of Ext.P1, submits that the 3rd respondent, who is none other than her daughter, has not signed that compromise petition and therefore, the decree passed based on Ext.P1 is unenforcible. She filed I.A.655/2007 in the R.C.P to set aside the decree. That was dismissed by Ext.P2 order. This writ petition is filed, challenging Ext.P2. 2. We notice that the 3rd respondent, who must be aggrieved by Ext.P1 compromise, has not chosen to challenge it. The petitioner, who is a party to Ext.P1, cannot be permitted to challenge it, on the ground that the 3rd respondent has not signed it. In other words, the petitioner has no locus standi to object to Ext.P1. Therefore, we are of the view that Ext.P2 order WPC 1146/2008 2 was rightly passed by the learned Rent Controller. Therefore, the writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against Ext.P2 is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/