IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 19TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 1536 of 2008(G) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/11/2007 IN IA 42/2007 IN OS.No....../2007 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. N. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, S/O. NEELAKANDA PILLAI, KAIKKARA VEEDU, PLAKKAD, ADICHANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM. 2. M. RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, S/O. MADHAVAN PILLAI, KEEKKANIVILA, PLAKKAD, ADICHANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. B. VASUDEVAN PILLAI, S/O. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, VALIYAZHIKATHU VEEDU, PLAKKAD, ADICHANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM. 2. SOMARAJAN NAIR, S/O.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, SRIKAILASOM, PLAKKAD, ADICHANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM. 3. G. KUNJUKRISHNA PILLAI, THEKKEVILA VEEDU, PLAKKAD, ADICHANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM. 4. J. SANTHOSH, THEKKE URANDAKKAL,PLAKKAD, ADICHANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM. (CNTD...2) ::2:: 5. B. CHANDRACHOODAN PILLAI, UDANASSERI VEEDU, PLAKKAD, ADICHANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM. 6. G.BHASKARAN NAIR, LATHIKA NIVAS, PLAKKAD, ADICHANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM. ADV. MR. K.SHAJ FOR R3,5& 6 MR. B.BALRAJ FOR R3,5 & 6 MR. SAJJU.S FOR R3,5 & 6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 1536 of 2008(G) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: PETITION AND AFFIDAVIT. EXT.P2: OBJECTION DTD. 13.9.2007 EXT.P3: MEMO DATED 27.9.2007 EXT.P4: ORDER DATED 29.11.2007. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ...... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.1536 of 2008 - G --------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners, two in number, had applied for leave to institute a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure with respect to a temple situate in Kollam District. On the leave application so moved by the petitioners the court below directed to publish notice in a newspaper. Petitioners complied with that direction. Later, noticing that there was some defect in the draft plaint, petitioners applied for permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh suit. Learned District Judge passed Ext.P4 order directing the petitioners for publication in any newspaper for such withdrawal. Correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel as leave has not been granted by the court for instituting the suit for the sole reason previously a publication was made in the leave application as directed by the court below, no further notice is necessary for withdrawal of the leave application. I find some W.P.(C).No.1536 of 2009 - G 2 force in the submission made by the counsel. Applicability of Order I Rule 8(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure which demand further publication would arise for consideration only when permission had been granted to the persons to sue in a representative capacity. In the present case no such permission had been granted, but, they had been directed to give notice of publication only on the leave application to sue in the representative capacity. Such publication had been effected on the application does not postulate that permission had been granted to institute a suit in a representative capacity. Such being the position, I find to withdraw the leave application further publication of notice is not necessary. Setting aside Ext.P4 order I direct the court below to consider the request of the petitioners for withdrawal of the leave application in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-