IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2321 of 2008(B) ------------------------------------ OS.155/2006 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,KOCHI .................... PETITIONERS: ------------------- 1. P.J. FRANCIS, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. LATE RAPPEL JOSEPH, PALLATHUSSERY, OCHANTHURUTH, VYPIN, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE. 2. P.J. LILLY DEVY, AGED 58 YEARS, D/O. LATE RAPPEL JOSEPH, MANAKKIL, GOTHURUTH POST, NORTH PARUR. 3. P.J. DARLY, AGED 51 YEARS, D/O. LATE RAPPEL JOSEPH, CHULLIPARAMBIL, CHEMBUMUKKU, THRIKKAKARA VILLAGE. 4. P.J.MARY @ DALMA, AGED 48 YEARS, D/O. LATE RAPPEL JOSEPH, KARIPPATT, JUDGES AVENUE, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. 5. P.J.ANI IRENE @ DELPHY, AGED 44 YEARS, D/O.LATE RAPPEL JOSEPH, VALIAYAPARAMBIL VEEDU, PERANDOOR ROAD, KALOOR. 6. P.J. DAISY, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O. LATE RAPPEL JOSEPH, VALIYAPARAMBIL VEEDU, PERANDOOR ROAD, KALOOR. 7. SHIJU JOSEPH, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. LATE RAPPEL JOSEPH, PALLATHUSSRY,OCHANTHURUTH VYPIN, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA W.P.(C) NO.2321/2008 RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. ANIKUTTY @ ANI ABRAHAM, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O. ABRAHAM, PULLAYIL VEEDU, VADAKKUMBURAM POST, NORTH PARUR. 2. ALIS, D/O. JOSE PETER, AGED 48 YEARS, PONVELI VEEDU, KUMBALANGHI POST. 3. ALBY, S/O. JOSE PETER, AGED 45 YEARS, -DO- -DO-. 4. PRINCE, S/O. JOSE PETER, AGED 40 YEARS, -DO- -DO-. 5. LALU, S/O. JOSE PETER, AGED 34 YEARS, -DO- -DO-. 6. JOSEPH PETER, AGED 70 YEARS, -DO- -DO-. 7. P.J. RAPHY, S/O. LATE RAPPEL JOSEPH, PALLATHUSSERY VEEDU, OCHANTHURUTH, VYPIN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== W.P.(C) No.2321 OF 2008 ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of January 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed challenging the judgment of the Prl.Munsiff's Court, Kochi in O.S.No.155 of 2006, whereby it has rejected the plaint with cost of defendants. The statutory remedy provided is to file an appeal for the reason that a decree has to be drawn on rejection of the plaint. By decisions, it is held that a review application is also maintainable, if there are sufficient grounds under Order 47 of C.P.C. and the remedy is not to file a writ petition. Therefore the writ petition is dismissed. I make it clear that it will not debar the petitioner from seeking appropriate relief from appropriate forums. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-