IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 CRP.No. 835 of 2008 --------------------------------- IA 313/2008 IN OS.258/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHANGANACHERRY .................... PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS: 1. S.A.B.S.ASSOCIATION CONVENT, MAMMOODU, CHANGANACHERRY REP. BY THE MOTHER SUPERIOR. 2. MOTHER ANIT CHALANGADI, PROVINCIAL HOUSE, KOOTHRAPPALLY. 3. SISTER RITTY, HEAD MISTRESS, SAINT SHANTALS HIGH SCHOOL, MAMMOODU, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SMT.ELIZABETH MATHAI IDICULLA SRI.RACHEL P.MATHEW SRI.MOHAN IDICULLA ABRAHAM SRI.MARTIN D.ALUMKARA SMT.PUSHPY B.MURICKEN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: 1. AGNUSAMMA, KUDAKASSERIL HOUSE, MADAPPALLY MURI, MADAPPALLY VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY. 2. PHILIP, THUNDATHIL HOUSE, MADAPPALLY, CHANGANACHERRY. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. -------------------------- C.R.P.No.835 of 2008 -------------------------- ORDER Heard counsel for the petitioner. 2. This revision is filed by the defendants in O.S.No.258/06 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Changanassery assailing the order of the Munsiff on I.A.No.313/08 in the above suit granting leave to the respondents/plaintiffs to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action on condition that they should pay Rs.500/- as cost to the petitioners/defendants. The contention that is advanced before me by the petitioners assailing the said order is that the suit being one in a representative capacity, public notice should have been given to all affected parties and then only the respondents/plaintiffs could be allowed to withdraw the suit with leave. The order passed by the court below has dealt with the contentions so advanced and has found in paragraph 14 of the impugned order that though CRP 835/08 2 publication was ordered on petition seeking leave under Order I Rule 8 CPC, publication had not been effected and consequently that petition was dismissed. Certain other contentions were also raised before the trial court other than the one raised before me and the trial court found on merits that the contentions advanced are not tenable and that the suit is liable to fail on account of the formal defects pointed out in the application for withdrawal. It was in those circumstances that leave was granted to the respondents/plaintiffs to withdraw the suit with leave to institute fresh suit on the same cause of action. The order cannot be faulted. There is no merit in this revision assailing the said order. This revision petition is, hence, dismissed. 28th November, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv