IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 7TH ASWINA 1931 RP.No. 914 of 2009(O) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.11602/2009 Dated 12/08/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------- RAMACHANDRA SHENOY, PUTHENKADU MADAM, ANDHAKARANAZHY P.O., CHERTHALA. BY ADV. MR.ROY CHACKO RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER: ------------------------- KRISHNA SHENOY, PUTHENKADU MADAM, ANDHAKARANAZHY P.O., CHERTHALA. BY ADV.MR. J OMPRAKASH THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- R.P.No.914 of 2009 in W.P.(C).No.11602 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September, 2009 O R D E R Petition has been filed to review the judgment dated 12.8.2009 rendered by this Court in W.P.(C).No.11602 of 2009. Respondent in the writ petition/plaintiff in the suit has filed this review petition. Suit was one for injunction, both prohibitory and mandatory. Petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit seeking the relief claimed in a representative capacity by moving an application under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant resisted the right of the plaintiff to sue in the representative capacity contending that the parties interested are limited, numbering to 17 persons, who are cultivators having interest over the paddy fields with that of the plaintiff. After hearing both sides, the court below negativing the objections of the defendant permitted the plaintiff to sue in the representative capacity and that was challenged before this Court in a writ petition. After hearing both sides and taking note of the R.P.No.914 of 2009 2 submissions made and also the facts and circumstances presented, the writ petition was disposed with some directions, observing that on the facts presented the plaintiff can maintain the suit even in his individual capacity as against the defendant. But, in case the defendant supplies the names of the 15 persons out of the 17, excluding the plaintiff and defendant, who are stated to be interested in the paddy fields, it was observed that it would be open to the plaintiff to implead them as defendants in the suit. The present review petition has been filed stating that the petitioner/plaintiff had already effected publication of notice under Order I Rule 8 of the CPC and so much so, the directions given by this court demand clarifications. After hearing the counsel on both sides, I find no justifiable ground to review the judgment. Publication of the notice under Order I Rule 8 of the CPC by the plaintiff in no way can be canvassed to examine the correctness and propriety of the judgment rendered by this Court. This Court has not expressed any definite finding that the plaintiff is entitled to sue in his individual capacity for the relief claimed and it may give some confusion to the trial court, is the R.P.No.914 of 2009 3 other ground canvassed for review. I find no basis for the submission so made. This Court is not expected to make any definite finding on the competency of the plaintiff to sue in the individual capacity while exercising its visitorial jurisdiction in examining the merit of an order passed by the subordinate court. On the facts presented, it was found that the suit filed in a representative capacity, where the affected parties are limited and confined to only 17 persons, was found to be not proper and correct. In that view of the matter, the order of the court below permitting the plaintiff in representative capacity was set aside and the writ petition disposed subject to the observations made thereon. There is no merit in the review petition, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-