IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2009 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9138 of 2009(O) --------------------------------- AS.61/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA OPELE.9/2005 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER : ---------------- VISWANATHAN,S/O.RAGHAVAN, THAIVEETTUVELI AROOKUTTY VILLAGE, AROOKUTTY PANCHAYAT, ALAPPUZHA BY ADV. SRI.VISHNURAJ RESPONDENTS : ------------------- 1. B.VINOD,S/O.BHASKARA MENON,VELIYIL HOUSE AROOKUTTY VILLAGE, AROOKUTTY PANCHAYT, ALAPPUZHA. 2. RAJESH, S/O.BHASKARA PANICKER, PALLIYIL, AROOKUTTY VILLAGE, AROOKUTTY PANCHAYAT, ALAPPUZHA. 3. ANILKUMAR, S/O.PURUSHAN, PADIYAMPARAMBIL AROOKUTTY VILLAGE, AROOKUTTY PANCHAYAT, ALAPPUZHA. 4. GAFOOR, S/O.ABDUL KARIM, VADAKKEKARIPPASSERIL, AROOKUTTY VILLGE, AROOKUTTY PANCHAYAT, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM FOR R1 SRI.DIPU.R FOR R1 SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW FOR R1 SRI.N.HARIHARAKUMAR (AMBADI) FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.9138 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the first respondent in O.P.(Election) No.9/2005 on the file of the Court of the Principal Munsiff, Cherthala. The O.P. was filed by the first respondent herein to declare the election of the writ petitioner as void and to declare the election petitioner as duly elected. The trial court allowed the petition. The writ petitioner filed A.S.No.61/2008 before the District Court, Alappuzha, challenging the order of the trial court. As per order in I.A.No.606/2008, the appellate court was pleased to grant stay. Later, as per order dated 02.03.2009, the stay was vacated. The order passed by the learned District Judge reads as follows :- “ Inspite of the direction to take steps to issue notice against R4 by registered post or by paper publication, the appellant did not take steps. In the circumstance the stay is vacated. Notice to R4 to 26.03.2009. ” 2. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the lapse on the part of the writ petitioner may be W.P.(C) No.9138 of 2009 2 condoned and that he may be permitted to take out notice to the fourth respondent in the appeal in such manner as this court may deem fit. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the Writ Petition can be disposed of in the following manner : 1. The writ petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as costs to the first respondent for the inconvenience caused to him, on or before 07.04.2009. 2. The order dated 02.03.2009 passed by the District Court, Alappuzha in I.A.No.606/2008 in A.S.No.61/2008 shall be kept in abeyance to enable the writ petitioner to comply with the directions that may be issued by the court to complete the service on the fourth respondent in the appeal. 3. The writ petitioner shall take out notice to the fourth respondent by a process server appointed by the court as a special messenger within such W.P.(C) No.9138 of 2009 3 time as the court below directs. The petitioner shall bear the necessary expense for the same. Thereafter, if service is not complete and the court below thinks it fit to effect substituted service by newspaper publication, appropriate orders shall be passed and the petitioner shall comply with the same within two days thereafter. If the above directions and the orders passed by the court below are complied with by the writ petitioner within the time stipulated, the stay order in A.S.No.61/2008 will continue to be in force. On the other hand, if the writ petitioner fails to comply with the above directions and the orders passed by the court below, the order impugned will revive and the stay granted in the appeal will stand vacated. The Writ Petition is disposed of. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE pac