IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2011 / 12TH SRAVANA 1933 OP(C).No. 2534 of 2011(O) ------------------------- OS.386/2006 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... PETITIONERS: ----------------------- 1. ANITHA RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, W/O. LATE RADHAKRISHNAN, ANU BHAVAN, NADUVILAKKARA CHERRY, KALLUVETTANKUZHI, THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, ALUMMOODU P.O., KOLLAM. 2. ANUKRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, S/O. LATE RADHAKRISHNAN, ANU BHAVAN, NADUVILAKKARA CHERRY, KALLUVETTANKUZHI, THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, ALUMMOODU P.O., KOLLAM. 3. ANJU KRISHNAN, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. LATE RADHAKRISHNAN, ANU BHAVAN, NADUVILAKKARA CHERRY, KALLUVETTANKUZHI, THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, ALUMMOODU P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.H.HARIKUMAR (KOLLAM), SRI.SAJJU.S. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. ANIL KUMAR, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. G.KUNJU PILLAI, PANDARAPURATHU HOUSE, MUKKOLA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 691 024. 2. THE MANAGER, LEGAL & HPF, LIC OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 691 012. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss OPC.NO.2534/2011 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF MR.RADHAKRISHNAN FAMILY MEMBERSHIP CERTIFICATE AND MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.S.NO.386/2006 DTD. 13/06/2011 OF THE 1ST ADDL.SUB JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P3: COPY OF THE MARRIAGE INVITATION CARD OF THE 3RD PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.2534 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 03rd day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioners who are the defendants in O.S.No.386 of 2006 challenge Ext.P2, order whereby learned First Additional Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram has returned the plaint for reasons including that the said Court has not territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. According to the learned counsel, second respondent herein, the LIC with whom the predecessor-in- interest of petitioners had three LIC policies has been treated as garnishee and the second respondent is not realising the amount notwithstanding that the plaint is returned. 2. I do not find reason why I should interfere with Ext.P2, order at the instance of petitioners. If the first respondents/plaintiffs is aggrieved by returning of the plaint it is for him to challenge the said order. 3. In the above circumstance, it is not necessary to interfere with Ext.P2, order at the instance of petitioners. Accordingly this original petition is closed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-