IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2008 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 32000 of 2008(H) -------------------------- IA NO.118/1995 IN AS.169/1995 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT-II, MAVELIKKARA OS.428/1993 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHENGANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- LATHA, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O.LATE SARASWATHY, KARTHIKAPPALLY KIZHAKKATHIL, KUTTANPEROOR MURI, MANNAR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THANKAMMA, PLACHERIL VEEDU, KUTTANPEROOR MURI, MANNAR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. REMANI, PLACHERIL VEEDU, -DO- -DO- 3. BAHULEYAN, PLACHERIL VEEDU, -DO- -DO- 4. KARTHIYAYANI, PLACHERIL VEEDU, -DO- -DO- 5. GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.GOWRI, THALAKULANJIVADAKKATHIL KOZHUVALLOOR MURI, MULAKKUZHA VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR. 6. INDIRA, D/O.GOWRI, -DO- -DO- 7. RADHA, D/O.GOWRI, -DO- -DO- 8. KUNJUMON, S/O.GOWRI, -DO- -DO- 9. VINOD, S/O.GOWRI, -DO- -DO- THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.32000 of 2008 H -------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT Heard counsel for petitioner. 2. Petitioner's mother who was one of the defendants in O.S.No.428 of 1993 of the court of learned Munisff, Chengannur challenged the decree against her in A.S.No.169 of 1995 on the file of Additional District Judge-II, Mavelikkara. Since the appeal was presented after the prescribed time, there was an application (I.A.No.118 of 1995) to condone delay. That application to condone delay was dismissed as per Ext.P4, order dated 5.11.2005 due to defects in steps and for non-representation. Consequently, appeal was also dismissed. Petitioner's mother (appellant in the appeal) died on 19.3.2006. This Writ Petition is filed seeking an order or direction to quash Ext.P4, order in I.A.No.118 of 1995 and a direction to the Additional District Judge, Mavelikkara to reconsider I.A.No.118 of 1995. 3. It is seen from Ext.4, order dated 5.11.2005 that the application was dismissed as defects were not cured and since there was no representation. 4. Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that where any proceeding may be taken or application made by or against any person, then the proceeding may be taken or the application may be made by or against any WP(C) No.32000/2008 2 person claiming under him. Therefore, petitioner as a legal representative of the deceased appellant could have made appropriate applications before the Additional District Court-II, Mavelikkara for impleadment, review of the order under challenge or, restoration of the application and appeal dismissed, as the case may be, if the petitioner were otherwise entitled to that course. There is no reason why this Court should quash the impugned order or issue direction as prayed for. Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to move appropriate application in the Additional District Court-II, Mavelikkara if the petitioner is otherwise entitled to that course. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. cks