IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 CRP.No. 479 of 2009() ------------------------------- E.P. 59/2009 IN OS.153/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPPALAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/3RD PARTY: ---------------------------------- C.G.LIOSAN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.LATE C.J.GEORGE, RESIDING AT KRIPA VEEDU, THOTTAKKARA AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADVS.MR.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SMT.N.N.PRASEEDA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS ------------------------- 1. REV.DR.GEORGE ISAC, AGED 66 YEARS, (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN), BISHOP, NORTH KERALA PASTORATE, DIOCESAN OFFICE, SHORANUR, PRESENT BISHOP REV.DR.K.P.KURUVILA, AGED 58 YEARS, (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN), BISHOP, CSI, NORTH KERALA DIOCESE, SHORANUR. 2. REV.B.N.FENN, AGED 52 YEARS, (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN), TREASURER AND ATTORNEY, CSI NORTH KERALA DIOCESE, DIOCESAN OFFICE, SHORANUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.No.479 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009 O R D E R The revision is directed against the order dated 7.8.2009 in E.P.No.59 of 2009 in O.S.No.153 of 2004 passed by the learned Munsiff, Ottappalam. Petitioner, who is not a party to the above suit moved an application under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging that the defendants in the suit against whom a decree of injunction had been passed violated the decree and therefore liable to be proceeded for such violation as envisaged by law. The defendants entered appearance and filed objections in which among other contentions they challenged the maintainability of the petition also. The learned Munsiff, after hearing both sides, found the petition not maintainable and it was accordingly dismissed. Propriety and correctness of that order so passed by the learned Munsiff is challenged in this revision. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. It is submitted that previous suit, O.S.No.153 of 2004 in which a decree of injunction was passed against the C.R.P.No.479 of 2009 2 defendants was filed by the plaintiff therein as a representative of the community to which the petitioner also belong. Though the suit has not been proceeded in a representative capacity seeking permission to institute in such capacity and complying with the procedure mandates covered under Order I Rule 8 Code of Civil Procedure with publication, according to the learned counsel, the nature of the allegations raised in the plaint and also the relief claimed thereunder would disclose that it was filed in a representative capacity and the decree passed in the suit applied to all interested persons of the community similar to the plaintiff. The decree and judgment passed in the case has the effect in rem and not in personam is the argument of the learned counsel. I am not impressed by the submissions of the counsel. Even if others are also interested in any decree granted in favour of the plaintiff that will not be sufficient to hold that the decree has been passed in rem in respect of all persons interested. Except in the case of representative suits complying with the procedures, and also proceedings involving issue of letters of administration probate etc., all judgments rendered by the court can be treated C.R.P.No.479 of 2009 3 only as in personam whatever be its effect and whatsoever be the interest of other parties in the judgment so passed. Merely because a decree has been passed against the defendants in which the petitioner is also interested, and earnestly desirous of its compliance it does not follow that he can proceed against the defendants in the event of violation of decree by them. Petitioner, who is not a party to the suit cannot proceed against the defendants for violation of a decree of injunction in a suit passed in which he was not a party. For that solitary reason itself his application moved under Order XXI Rule 32 Code of Civil Procedure was not entertainable and it was rightly and correctly held so by the learned Munsiff. Revision lacks merit and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-