IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932 CRP.No. 125 of 2010() --------------------- I.A.NO.117/2010 IN OS.433/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT,ALUVA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS ------------------------------------------- 1. JOHNY (DIED) S/O.POULO, GOPURATHINKAL, KARAYAMPARAMBU KARA, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. 2. DALIYA, D/O.JOHNY, GOPURATHINKAL, KARAYAMPARAMBU KARA, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. 3. DINEESH, S/O.JOHNY, GOPURATHINKAL, KARAYAMPARAMBU KARA, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF 1 TO 3 REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER - JOY, S/O.POULO, GOPURATHINKAL, KARAYAMPARAMBU KARA, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANTS ------------------------- 1. STEPHEN, S/O.POULO, GOPURATHINKAL KARAYAMPARAMBUKARA, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. PREM STEPHEN, S/O.STEPHEN, GOPURATHINKAL, KARAYAMPARAMBUKARA, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THOMAS STEPHEN, S/O.STEPHEN, GOPURATHINKAL, KARAYAMPARAMBUKARA, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 - BY PARTY IN PERSON THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2010, ALONG WITH CRP NO.206/2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P.Nos.125 of 2010 & 206 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2010. ORDER In C.R.P.No.125 of 2010, respondent No.1 appears in person while, respondent No.3 though served has not responded. Notice of respondent No.2 is returned without any endorsement. In C.R.P.No.206 of 2010, respondent No.1 appears in person. In the nature of the order I am proposing to pass in these revision petitions it is not necessary to issue notice to others or await notice of respondent No.2 in C.R.P.No.125 of 2010. 2. C.R.P.No.125 of 2010 arises from the order on I.A.No.117 of 2010 while, C.R.P.No.206 of 2010 arises from order on I.A.No.116 of 2010, both in O.S.No.433 of 2007 of the court of learned Munsiff, Aluva. Plaintiffs were represented by their power of attorney holder. Plaintiff No.1 died during pendency of the suit and consequently, the power of attorney holder of remaining plaintiffs filed I.A.No.117 of 2010 for impleadment of legal representative of deceased plaintiff No.1. He also filed I.A.No.116 of 2010 for amendment of the plaint. Both the applications were dismissed by the learned Munsiff for the reason that on death of plaintiff No.1, power of attorney to the extent it concerned deceased plaintiff No.1 ceased to be effective and hence power of CRP Nos.125 & 206/2010 2 attorney holder could not continue as the master is no more. That order is under challenge in these revisions at the instance of petitioners/ plaintiff Nos.2 to 4. Learned counsel for petitioners submit that petitioners are prepared to file fresh applications for appropriate reliefs on getting power of attorney from the legal representative of deceased plaintiff No.1 sought to be impleaded. Respondent No.1 in these petitions appeared in person and contended that the person sought to be impleaded as legal representative of deceased plaintiff No.1 is not the wife of deceased plaintiff No.1. It is his contention that wife of deceased plaintiff No.1 is another women who is still alive. This statement is disputed by petitioners. I note from the orders under challenge that dismissal of the applications are not on that ground but for the technical reason that the power of attorney ceased to be effective in respect of deceased plaintiff No.1 consequent to his death and hence the applications are not in order. In otherwords the orders under challenge do not curtail the right of petitioners to move appropriate applications with proper authority. I make it clear that if any of the contesting respondents have a contention as to the maintainability or sustainability of the applications that may be preferred by the petitioners it will be open to them to raise such contentions before the appropriate court at the appropriate stage. Resultantly without prejudice to the right of petitioners to move fresh applications on getting appropriate authority from the legal representative of CRP Nos.125 & 206/2010 3 deceased plaintiff No.1 sought to be impleaded, these revision petitions are closed. I.A.No.568 of 2010 in C.R.P.No.125 of 2010 and I.A.No.966 of 2010 in C.R.P.No.206 of 2010 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks