IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2009 / 9TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18268 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- OS.NO.477/2004 OF MUNSIFF COURT,KAYAMKULAM. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- KAILASAN, KAILAS BHAVAN, KEERIKKAD SOUTH MURI,KEERIKKAD,KAYAMKULAM. BY ADVS. MR.P.SREEKUMAR, MR.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. S.N.D.P.SAKHAYOGAM NO.334,KEERIKKAD SOUTH,REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT B.SHAJISHA, MUTTEL PUTHUVAL (KIDANGIL),KEERIKKAD SOUTH, KAYAMKULAM. 2. K.PEETHAMBARAN,CHERUVALLIL PADEETTATHIL, KEERIKKAD SOUTH,KAYAMKULAM. 3. K.M.BABU,DEVASWOM SECRETARY, VETTUTHARAKKADAVIL,KEERIKKAD,KAYAMKULAM. 4. RADHAKRISHNAN,KUTTIKKATTU THEKKETHIL, KEERIKKAD,KAYAMKULAM. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.18268 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.477/2004 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kayamkulam. Suit was one for declaration and injunction. Permission to institute the suit in a representative capacity invoking Order I Rule 8 CPC was applied for seeking the reliefs claimed in the suit which was allowed by the court ordering publication. The order so passed by the court was not noted in the A Diary and petitioner came to know of it only at a later stage and as such he could not make the publication, is the case of the petitioner. Seeking indulgence of court to effect publication stating the aforesaid grounds, petitioner moved an application. Ext.P1 is the copy of that application. Learned Munsiff after considering the merit of that application found it not entertainable and it was dismissed. Ext.P2 is the copy of that order. Impeaching the correctness and propriety of Ext.P2 order, petitioner has filed this writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C).No.18268 of 2009 - O 2 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. 3. Having regard to the submissions made and the facts and circumstances presented, I find no impropriety or illegality in Ext.P2 order passed by the learned Munsiff. The case was included in the list and after closing of the trial, petitioner applied for publication setting forth a case that he had no knowledge of the order passed by the court earlier. Suit was filed in a representative capacity and no decree thereunder could have been passed without effecting publication need not be pointed out. So the plea canvassed by the petitioner that the order passed by the court directing publication was not noted in A diary need be taken note only for its rejection. After the trial commenced no purpose will be served by publication under Order I Rule 8 CPC. In that view of the matter, I find the dismissal of the application by the learned Munsiff is unquestionable . The writ petition is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-