IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 18TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 4506 of 2008(J) ------------------------- OS.323/2006 of MUNSIF COURT, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- ANTONY, AGED 57, S/O. MANI, KAIPPANANIKKAL, ELIKULAM KARA, ELIKULAM VILLAGE, REP. BY NEXT FRIEND MARY, AGED 54, W/O. ANTONY, KAIPPANANIKKAL, ELIKULAM KARA, ELIKULAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL SRI.N.M.MADHU RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. MARIAM, AGED ABOUT 73, D/O. MANI, VECHOOR HOUSE, ELIKKULAM KARA, ELIKKULAM VILLAGE. 2. ALEY, AGED 70, D/O. MANI, MOOZHIKUZHIYIL HOUSE, MOONNILAVU VILLAGE. 3. EMMANUEL, AGED 74, S/O. MANI, KAIPPANANIKKAL, ELLAKALLU KARA, KUNCHITHANNI VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK. 4. JOSEPH, AGED 67, S/O. MANI, KAIPPANANIKKAL, KARIMKUNNAM KARA, KARIMKUNNAM VILLAGE. 5. THOMAS, AGED 65, S/O. MANI, KAIPPANANIKKAL, ELLAKALLU KARA, KUNCHITHANNI VILLAGE. (DIED) 6. SEBASTIAN, AGED 58, S/O. MANI, KAIPPANANIKKAL, KARIMKUNNAM KARA, KARIMKUNNAM VILLAGE. 7. ROSA, AGED 52, D/O. MANI, SRAMPIKKAL, KALIYAR KARA, KALIYAR VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 4506 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 7thday of February, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Munsiff, Kanjirappally in IA 1939/07 in OS 323/06. The said petition was filed invoking Order XXII Rule 4(4) of the CPC whereby the request is made to the court not to insist for impleadment of the legal representative of the 5th defendant in the suit, who is dead but has chosen to remain ex party in the suit. He has also not filed any written statement. The very suit is for setting aside the judgment and decree in OS 16/02. 2. It is true that power is granted to the court under Order XXII Rule 4(4) for granting exemption. But when the court applied its mind and thinks that their junction may be necessary for a proper disposal of the case, one shall not find fault with that court for arriving such a decision. It is of the more so in this case, for the reason that the very suit is to set aside a previous decree passed by a competent court. WPC NO 4506/08 2 Therefore, I declined the order passed by the court below. But I direct the court below to give sufficient time to the plaintiff in the suit to take steps to implead the legal representatives of the 5th defendant and only after disposing of the impleading application proceed with the trial of the case in accordance with law. I am informed that the legal representatives are residing in different places and a period of one month's time may be given for taking steps. Needless to say, if the suit is listed for trial, it may be deferred. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC NO 4506/08 3