IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 28TH BHADRA 1933 OP(C).No. 3005 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------ AS.305/2010 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM OS.375/1999 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER : -------------------- MAYA RAJAN, W/O.RAJENDRA KURUP, CHARINJAYATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, AMBALATHUMBHAGOM, PORUVAZHY VILLAGE KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. VISWANATHAN THAMPY, S/O.KRISHNAKURUP ANAVOTTUKIZHAKKATHIL, AMBALATHUMBHAGOM PORUVAZHY, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT 690 520. 2. SYAMALA AMMA, ANAVOTTUKIZHAKKATHIL AMBALATHUMBHAGOM, PORUVAZHY, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT 690 520. 3. RAJENDRA KURUP,CHARINJAYATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, AMBALATHUMBHAGOM,PORUVAZHY, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT 690 520. 4. KARTHYAYANI AMMA, W/O.LATE KOCHU RAMAN PILLAI, AIKKARA KIZHAKKETHIL KRISHNA NIVAS, NELLIPUZHA,MUTHUPILIKKADU PO, PORUVAZHY VILLAGE KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT 690 520. 5. KUNJUKRISHNAN PILLAI,S/O.LATE KOCHU RAMAN PILLAI,AIKKARA KIZHAKKETHIL KRISHNA NIVAS, NELLIPUZHA,MUTHUPILIKKADU PO, PORUVAZHY VILLAGE KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT 690 520. 6. SUBHADRA AMMA, D/O.LATE KOCHU RAMAN PILLAI,AIKKARA KIZHAKKETHIL KRISHNA NIVAS, NELLIPUZHA,MUTHUPILIKKADU PO, PORUVAZHY VILLAGE KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT 690 520. OP(C).No. 3005 of 2011(O) 7. SIVAN PILLAI, S/O.LATE KOCHU RAMAN PILLAI AIKKARA KIZHAKKETHIL KRISHNA NIVAS, NELLIPUZHA, MUTHUPILIKKADU PO, PORUVAZHY VILLAGE KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT 690 520. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C).No. 3005 of 2011(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.31.1.2004 IN OS.375/99 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KOLLAM. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL, A.S.305/2010 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM DT.24.11.2010. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IA. IN A.S 305/2010 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM DT.24.11.2010. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DT.NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PROCESSS SERVER IN AS 305/2010 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE IA.880/2011 IN AS 305/2010 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM DT.23.5.2011. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION, IA 885/2011 IN AS.305/2010 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM DT.1.6.2011. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN IA.880/2011 AND 885/2011 IN AS 305/2010 IN OS.375/99 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KOLLAM, DT.11.8.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. ln THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ----------------------------------- O.P(C)No. 3005 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Learned counsel submits that the suit was dismissed for default and against the dismissal for default, petitioner filed an appeal, A.S. No. 305/2010 as a decree was drawn up and the learned District Judge appears to have entertained the Appeal. Steps were taken against respondents 5 to 7 who are the legal heirs of deceased 3rd defendant. The Process Server deputed by learned District Judge made an attempt to serve notice on respondents 5 to 7. He learned from the wife of respondent No. 7 that respondents 5 to 7 are working in the Gulf and the states of Maharashtra and Jammu & Kashmir, respectively. Thereon, petitioner filed an application under Order V Rule 20 (1A) of the Code of Civil Procedure for service by paper publication. That application was dismissed by the learned District Judge vide Ext.P7 order which is under challenge. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel that petitioner had made earnest efforts to find out the address of the respondents 5 to 7, but in vain. It is also submitted that 2 OP(C) No. 3005 of 2011 there is no other way of collecting of the address of respondents 5 to 7 and in the circumstances, dismissal of I.A. No. 880 of 2011 and 885 of 2011 (in A.S. No. 305 of 2010 of the learned Sub Judge, Kollam) is not justified. 3. Learned District Judge was of the view that before applying for a paper publication, petitioner was to conduct proper enquiry whether there is any agent appointed by respondents 5 to 7 to receive notice on their behalf. Learned District Judge took the view that in the circumstances there could not be any attempt to serve notice on respondents 5 to 7 by way of paper publication. 4. Having heard learned counsel and going through the order under challenge I do not find reason to interfere with that finding. But I make it clear that if after earnest effort is made by petitioner either to find out the address of respondents 5 to 7 or ascertain whether respondents 5 to 7 have agents for receipt of notice, petitioner is not able to find so, the impugned order will not stand in the way of petitioner seeking the assistance of the 3 OP(C) No. 3005 of 2011 Court for substituted service on respondents 5 to 7 as provided under law. With the above observation, this Original Petition is closed. THOMAS P JOSEPH JUDGE dnc