IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2011 / 5TH MAGHA 1932 OP(C).No. 339 of 2011(O) ------------------------ I.A.Nos.3208/09, 3209/09 & 1570/10 IN OS.355/1994 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONERS (S): -------------------- 1. TREESA FERNANDEZ, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O.LATE JOSEPH, VELIYIL PURAYIDOM, VADAKKUMBHAGAM CHERRY, ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2. SAMSON JOSEPH, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.LATE JOSEPH, T.C.7/1524(8), PANGODU CHERRY, SASTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ALEX N.MATHEW (KOLLAM) SRI.H.RAMANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. METILDA, W/O.LATE BENANCE, ST.JOHNS VILLA, VADAKKUMBHAGAM CHERRY, ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN-691011. 2. MOLLY, D/O.LATE BENANCE, -DO-. 3. JOLLY, D/O.LATE BENANCE, -DO-. 4. TERRY, D/O.LATE BENANCE, -DO-. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ----------------------------------- O.P.(C).No.339 of 2011 O ------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased sole defendant in O.S.No.355 of 1994 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Kollam. The petitioners were impleaded as additional defendants in the suit. The suit was thereafter dismissed for default on 10.12.2007. 2. It is stated that on 19.9.2009, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.3208 of 2009 under Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C. to restore the suit. I.A.No.3209 of 2009 was filed to condone the delay of one year and eight months in filing the application for restoration. These applications are pending. 3. While so on 18.10.2009, the plaintiff died. I.A.No.13 of 2010 was filed by the legal representatives of the plaintiff, who are shown as the respondents in this Original Petition, to get themselves impleaded. That application is also stated to be pending. O.P.(C) No.339 of 2011 2 4. While so, the legal representatives of the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.1570 of 2010 to correct some mistakes in the application for restoration, the application for condonation of delay and in the cause title to those applications. The number of the suit was wrongly stated as O.S.No.355 of 2004 instead of O.S.No.355 of 1994. That was one of the mistakes said to be corrected. It was also noticed by the legal representatives of the plaintiff that the names of the additional defendants were omitted to be included in the cause title. That was also sought to be corrected by filing I.A.No.1570 of 2010. The court below, by the order dated 26.5.2010, allowed I.A.No.1570 of 2010. 5. The prayer made in the Original Petition is to set aside the orders passed on Exhibits P2 and P3 (I.A.Nos.3208 of 2009 and 3209 of 2009 and also to set aside the order allowing I.A.No.1570 of 2010. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that correction, if any, could be allowed only after the legal representatives of the plaintiff were impleaded. The application for impleading is pending. Therefore, there was no justification in O.P.(C) No.339 of 2011 3 passing the order dated 26.5.2010 in I.A.No.1570 of 2010. Though the petitioners contend that several “illegal orders were passed in I.A.No.3208 of 2009 and 3209 of 2009”, I do not find any illegality as mentioned in the Original Petition. The order in I.A.No.1570 of 2010 was passed on 26.5.2010. There is no reason why the petitioners did not file the Original Petition earlier. Moreover, there is no illegality in the order dated 26.5.2010, as contended by the petitioners. The court below allowed the application only for correcting certain patent mistakes. Even in the Original Petition, the petitioners stated that those were mistakes. Certain evident mistakes were allowed to be corrected and the petitioners could not have any grievance against the orders passed by the court below. The Original Petition lacks bonafidees and merits. It is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl