IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2008 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 12297 of 2008(L) -------------------------------------- OS.346/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER: PLAINTIFF IN OS ------------------- 1. C.G. RAVINDRA PANICKER S/O.GOVINDA PANICKER, KIZHAKKEKARICKAL HOUSE POOVATHOOR, THRUKKANNAPURAM MURI KOYIPURAM VILLAGE. 2. SANTHOSH KUMAR, KOLLAMPARAMPIL HOUSE THRUKKANNAPURAM MURI, KOYIPURAM VILLAGE. 3. SURESH KUMAR, THARAYIL HOUSE THRUKKANAPURAM MURI, KOYIPURAM VILLAGE. 4. K.G. THANKAM, KOSETH HOUSE THRUKKANAPURAM MURI, KOYIPURAM VILLAGE. 5. MANJU VENUGOPAL, SUDHA NILAYATHIL THRUKANNAPURAM MURYI, KOYIPURAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. RESPONDENTS: DEFENDANTS IN OS ----------------------------- 1. NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY (N.S.S) HEAD OFFICE, CHANGANASSERY, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL SECRETARY. 2. POOVATHUR WEST N.S.S. KARAYOGAM NO.571 POOVATHUR P.O., KOYIPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. P.R. PRASAD, PRESIDENT POOVATHUR WEST N.S.S. KARAYOGAM PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, POOVATHUR P.O. THRUKKANNAPURAM MURI, KOYIPURAM VILLAGE. W.P.(C) NO.12297/2008 4. SREEKUMAR, SECRETARY POOVATHUR WEST N.S.S. KARAYOGAM ARIPPURACKAL, POOVATHUR P.O. THRUKKANNAPURAM MURI, KOYIPURAM VILLAGE. 5. TREASURER POOVATHUR WEST N.S.S. KARAYOGAM POOVATHOOR P.O., KOYIPURAM. 6. N.S.S. TALUK UNION, THIRUVALLA P.O. THIRUVALLA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 7. REGISTRAR, N.S.S. KARAYOGAMS NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY, CHANGANACHERRY. 8. ARANMULA PALLIYODA SEVA SANGHAM REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, ARANMULA PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 12297 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th day of April, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is preferred to issue a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5. I have perused Ext.P5 order. It is an order passed on the basis of consent of parties. It is subsequently stated that the counsel for the petitioner also agreed for the same. It is further seen that even the said application is not disposed of by the Court but it is posted along with the suit. If there is any grievance in such an order and if there is a grievance that the consent has not been given, it is for the party to approach that Court where the said consent is stated to be made for reviewing that order. With the said liberty this writ petition is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-