IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 36735 of 2008(W) ---------------------------------------- OS.NO.56/2007 OF SUB COURT, QUILANDY. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- K.V. LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O. T. BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR ,KANNACHANKANDY HOUSE, P.O. KALPATHUR, VIA. MEPPAYUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN 673 524. BY ADV. MR.K.P.SUDHEER. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. M.G. SURESH KUMAR, PANIYANCHATHA MOOLAYIL, S/O. GOVINDA MARAR, MUKKAVALA, PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. K. NARAYANAN, S/O. PACHER, KIZHAKKARAMVELLY, MEPPAYYUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. MR.P.C.SASIDHARAN, R2 BY ADVS. MR.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED, MR.P.ABDUL JALEEL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.36735/2008-W: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 56/2007 DTD. 24/09/2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, KOYILANDY. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 28/09/2006 IN O.P. NO. 478/99 PASSED BY CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DTD. 18/12/2007 FILED BY 2ND DEFENDANT IN O.S. NO. 56/2007 BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, KOYILANDY. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE FINDING ON ISSUE NO.4 IN O.S. NO. 56/2007 DTD. 09/07/2008 PASSED BY THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, KOYILANDY. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED TO CORRECT THE COST LIST FILED BY 2ND DEFENDANT IN O.S. NO. 56/2007 BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, KOYILANDY. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.36735 of 2008 - W --------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.56/2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Koilandy. Suit was one for damages which was dismissed as barred by limitation. The issue raised in the suit with respect to bar of limitation on the basis of the contention raised by the respondents/defendants was considered preliminary, and, upholding that contention it was held that the suit was barred by limitation. Consequent to the finding so entered, it is not in dispute, the suit was dismissed. The petitioner/plaintiff has a statutory right to prefer an appeal against the dismissal of the suit and writ petition filed against the finding of an issue in the suit as covered by Ext.P4 order cannot be entertained. The writ petition is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-