IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16946 of 2008(P) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/03/2008 IN IA. 730 /2008 IN OS.308/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT, PERUMBAVOOR .................... PETITIONER: --------------- KURIAKOSE, AGED 62, S/O. KURIAN,KATTARUKUDY HOUSE, RAYAMANGALAM KARA, DO VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.S.SREEDEV RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT ----------------------- KURUVILA, AGED 62, S/O. VARKEY, KATTARUKUDY H0USE, RAYAMANGALAM KARA, -DO- VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16946 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 9th June, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.308/2004, on the file of the Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor. The suit was filed for declaration of easement right and for permanent prohibitory injunction. The suit was originally dismissed for non-payment of balance court fee on 10.8.2007. It was later restored as per order in I.A.NO.1932/2007 on 5.2.2008, on payment of cost of Rs.1500/=. Petitioner thereafter filed I.A.No.763/07, an application to implead a third party. The suit was thereafter dismissed for default on 18.3.2008. Consequently, impleading petition was also dismissed. Petitioner filed I.A.No.1299/08 for restoration of the suit which is pending disposal. Petitioner, in the mean while, filed I.A.No.730/08, an application under Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure to review the order in I.A.No.763/07, which was dismissed for default. That petition was dismissed under Ext.P1 order. It is challenged in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C) No.16946/2008 2 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. The learned counsel submitted that if Ext.P1 order is made to stand, even if the suit is to be restored on the pending application before the trial court, petitioner will not be permitted to implead the parties. Therefore, Ext.P1 order is to be quashed. When the suit itself stands dismissed, petition challenging the impugned order in that application will not lie. If the grievance of the petitioner is that learned Munsiff, on restoration of the suit, will not consider the impleading application on merit, it is made clear that if the suit is restored to file, Munsiff has to consider the application for impleading on merits and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed as above. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.