IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP(C).No. 3410 of 2011(O) -------------------------------------- OS.1445/2010 OF MUNSIFF COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER ------------------ JOY, AGED 51, S/O.ILLANJIKAL RAPHEAL, ARIPPALAM DESOM, POOMANGALAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR), SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH). RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. PAULSON, S/O.PYAMMAL LAVIS, ARIPPALAM DESOM, POOMANGALAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, 680 001. 2. GEORGE, S/O.PYAMMAL LAVIS, ARIPPALAM DESOM, POOMANGALAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, 680 001. R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.N.PADMAKUMAR, SRI.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR (P). THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs OP(C).No. 3410 of 2011(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.1445/2010 DATED 15/10/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE FIRST DEFENDANT DATED 21/2/2011 IN EXT.P1 SUIT. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.625/2011 TO EXT.P1 SUIT DATED 7/2/2011. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS TO EXT.P3 DATED 25/3/2011. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN IA NO.625/2011 IN OS NO.1445/2010 DATED 19/7/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.3410 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT This Original Petition is in challenge of Ext.P5, order refusing Ext.P3, application for amendment of plaint in O.S.No.1445 of 2010 of the court of learned Principal Munsiff, Irinjalakuda. 2. Learned counsel for respondents/defendants submits that the suit itself was dismissed on 08.11.2011 and that till yesterday, respondents have not received notice of any application for restoration of the suit. 3. Since suit itself is not in existence, it is not necessary to pursue this Original Petition. Original Petition is closed without prejudice to the right of petitioner to challenge the impugned order in case the suit is restored to file. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks