IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2007 / 26TH ASHADHA 1929 WP(C).No. 19453 of 2005(N) -------------------------- OS.49/2000 of MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ K.SAMUEL, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, MUSAVARIKUNNU, PUNALUR MURI, DO. VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. LIJU RAJAN, LIJU BHAVAN, PAPER MILL WARD, PUNALUR MURI, DO VILLAGE. 2. LIJI RAJAN, DO.DO. 3. LIJA RAJAN, DO.DO. 4. KARMALI, DO.DO. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 19453 OF 2005 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of July, 2007 JUDGMENT The writ petition is remaining defective on the reason that respondents 2 to 4 have not been served. But I find that the notice has been returned with endorsement 'unclaimed'. It is declared, invoking Rule 51(2) of the High Court Rules, that service on respondents 2 to 4 is sufficient. Sri.B.Krishna Mani, counsel for the petitioner is absent even when the case is taken up now after being passed over in the morning. I do not find any warrant to interfere with Ext.P6 under the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227. However, since the counsel for the petitioner is absent, the writ petition will stand dismissed only for default. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE btt WPC 2