IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 27TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 20863 of 2009(C) -------------------------------------- C.A. NO.386/2009 IN LAR.27/2007 of SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM (IVTH) .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- KUNJIPATHUMMA, AGED 72 YEARS, W/O. LATE PAREETH VEERAVU, PANDARATHIMALAYIL HOUSE, THENGODE P.O., KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. MR.BABU CHERUKARA MR.K.K.ALIAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR L.A., TRIPUNITHURA. 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KINFRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.I.V. PRAMOD R2 BY ADV. MR.E.K. NANDAKUMAR, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2009, THE COURT ON 18/09/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.20863 of 2009-C = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of September, 2009. JUDGMENT Reference Court passed Ext.P1 award. The first claimant therein is stated to have died on the next day. The writ petitioner and others invoked Order 1 Rule 10(2) and Section 151 of the CPC and filed an application for impleadment. The Court below dismissed it. A cheque application was filed by the petitioner on the ground that the other legal representatives have authorised her to collect the amounts. The Court below dismissed that application on the ground that all the legal representatives are not parties and that there is no order empowering the petitioner to withdraw the amount. Being a reference on the question of apportionment, it is suggested on behalf of the petitioner that the cheque application could be WP(C)24912/09 -: 2 :- considered and cheque issued even without filing an execution petition. That is a matter to be regulated by the Civil Rules of Practice and any circulars in force, as also, Practice and Procedure adopted by the lower courts. But, one thing is certain; regarding succession to the amount lying in deposit, the procedures laid down by this Court as law in Resilikutty Chacko v. The State of Kerala, 1999(2) ILR Ker. 60 and Elsy v. State of Kerala, 2008(1) KHC 615(DB) have to be followed. With this, the impugned orders are not interfered with and the writ petitioner is left to seek appropriate relief from the court below in the light of what is stated above. Having regard to the age of the petitioner, the Court below will consider expediting the finalisation of proceedings and will do the needful at the earliest. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/170909