IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2008 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 11469 of 2008(M) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN OS 348/2002 AND OS.344/2002 of MUNSIFF COURT, RANNI .................... PETITIONER: ------------ LEELAMMA CHACKO MANKILIMUTTATHU EZHUMATTOOR MURI, DO VILLAGE MALLAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU SRI.K.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR (178/74) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. K.A.ABBAS, AGED 52 YEARS, MUTHUPLACKAL VEEDU, EZHUMATTOOR MURI, DO VILLAGE FROM PLANTHOTTUVAZHI MURI, KOTTANGAL VILLAGE MALLAPPALLY TALUK. 2. KUNJAMMA BEEVI, AGED 72 YEARS PLATHOTTATHIL VEEDU,CHERUTHOTTUVAZHI MURI KOTTANGAL VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK 3. FATHUMMA BEEVI,AGED 52 YEARS DO..DO.. 4. ASMA BASHEER, AGED 48 YEARS DO..DO.. 5. NESEMA BEEVI, AGED 44 YEARS DO..DO... 6. ASSIYA HASSAN, AGED 35 YEARS DO..DO... THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 11469/2008 1 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------------------------------------- W.P.C. No 11469 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd April 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed for a direction to the District Court, Pathanamthitta to accept the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and decree in O.S. No 344 of 2002 in accordance with law. 2. The whole problem arises on account of the fact that the first defendant in O.S. No 344 of 2002 Abdul Rahman died and as per the cause title in the judgment his legal representatives are not seen impleaded. In the connected case, O.S. No 348 of 2002 wherein Abdul Rahman was the plaintiff, his death has been recorded and additional plaintiffs 3 to 7 were impleaded as per order in I.A. No 1174 of 2004 dated 28.01.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that proper application has been filed in O.S. No 344 of 2002 and it is only a mistake that has crept in. To crown all these things writ petitioner moved an application before the Munsiff's WPC 11469/2008 2 Court, Ranni which was dismissed stating that there was no defect in the decree. It shall not be the approach of a court. When the very judgment speaks about the death of a party and non impleadment, it is the duty of the court to find out whether any such application is filed and whether there is any omission on the part of the officer of the court or omission on the part of the lawyer who conducted the case. In such cases, interest of justice requires courts as found necessary and the award need not be looked into to see on whose account the mistake was committed. Therefore I dispose of this writ petition with direction to the writ petitioner herein to peruse the records and move appropriate application before the court which passed the judgment and decree for necessary correction. Sd/- M.N.KRISHNAN Judge 03/04/2008 en [true copy]