IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2010 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 2830 of 2001() ---------------------- ORDER DATED 24.9.2001 IN I.A.NO.2455/2001 IN OS.68/1999 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,KOCHI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER IN I.A.: --------------------- LITTLE FLOWER KURIES & ENTERPRISES LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT FORT COCHIN, COCHIN-1. BY ADV. SRI.JIMMY JOHN VELLANIKARAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN THE I.A.: --------------- 1.MRS.MARY SHELLY, W/O.E.X.JOSEPH, CHIRAKKAL HOUSE, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI-5. 2.K.C.JOSEPH PAUL, S/O.K.A.CLARENCE, UNION BANK OF INDIA, SERVICE BRANCH, ERNAKULAM. 3.FELIX ANTONY, PEON GR.II, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 4.T.K.KUNJUMON, CLERK/CASHIER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, MALA. THE ADDRESS OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT STANDS CORRECTED AS “UNION BANK OF INDIA, SASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM-1” VIDE ORDER DATED 3.3.2010 IN I.A.NO.550/10 IN C.R.P.NO.2830/01. ADV. SRI.SURESH JOSE FOR R1 SRI.A.X.VARGHESE FOR R4 SRI.A.V.JOJO FOR R4 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.M.P.NO.5971/2001 IN C.R.P.NO.2830/2001 DISMISSED. 18.2.2010 S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.2830 OF 2001 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2010 O R D E R Plaintiff in a suit for money is the revision petitioner. There were four defendants in the suit, the principal debtor and three sureties in a chitty transaction. Plaintiff is a chitty company, in which, the 1st defendant was a subscriber to a chitty. Suit was filed for claiming the defaulted amount from the 1st defendant, a subscriber who had obtained the prized money over the chitty with the defendants 2 to 4 as the sureties. The defendants resisted the suit claim. At the stage of trial and only after evidence was partly recorded, it came to the notice of the plaintiff that while issuing summons, there was a mistake in the initial of the 4th defendant, and that had resulted in the appearance of a different person instead of the 4th defendant before the court. Plaintiff moved an application to issue summons to the 4th defendant as shown in the plaint. The name CRP.2830/01 2 of the 4th defendant in the plaint was shown as 'T.K.Kunjumon', but by mistake, according to the plaintiff, when summons was issued, his name was shown as 'P.K.Kunjumon' and that had resulted in serving of summons on the person with such initials and his appearance before the court and contesting the suit. The learned Munsiff was not satisfied with the cause shown for the request made and the application moved by the plaintiff was dismissed. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision. 2. The 4th defendant in the suit as shown in the plaint had been served notice in the present revision and he has appeared through counsel. I heard the counsel on both sides. Suit for money filed in 1999 still continues on the file in view of the pendency of this revision, during which, the proceedings of the court below were kept stayed. I am satisfied that a mistake in the initials of the 4th defendant in the summons issued had caused the appearance of a different person in the suit in the place of the 4th defendant shown in the plaint. As it cannot be CRP.2830/01 3 concluded that there was wilful laches or deliberate default on the part of the plaintiff in issuing of summons to a wrong person as indicated, I find an opportunity should be extended to the plaintiff to proceed against the 4th defendant as shown in the plaint. Since the 4th defendant has already appeared before this Court and also in view of the fact that the suit had been instituted nearly a decade ago, insisting issue of a fresh summons to the 4th defendant with the copy of the plaint for continuation of the trial would only protract the completion of the trial. As directed by this Court, the copy of the plaint was served to the counsel for the 4th defendant and such service shall be deemed to be sufficient service complying with Order V Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Having regard to the fact that the 4th defendant had no notice of the proceedings till date and the delay in trial was not on account of his fault, the court below is directed to take note of it and if at all a decree is passed in the suit, the 4th defendant shall not be mulcted with the liability to pay interest on the suit claim for the period during which the revision continued on the file of this Court. The application CRP.2830/01 4 moved by the plaintiff for issuing of summons to the 4th defendant as shown in the plaint shall be treated as having been allowed and without any necessity for issuing any fresh summons to the 4th defendant. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 5.4.2010. The 4th defendant shall file his written statement to the suit claim within one month from the date fixed for his appearance. The court below shall dispose the suit as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Revision is disposed as indicated above. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.2830 OF 2001 () ----------------------------------- O R D E R 18th day of March, 2010 CRP.2830/01 6