IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 32342 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AS.28/2002 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.R. SARADHA BAI, D/O. RETNAMMA PILLAI, RAVIMANDIRAM, PATTANAKKAD MURI, -DO- VILLAGE, CHERTHALA BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. VIJAYAMMA, D/O. KAMALAKSHI, EACHARAM CHANIYIL, UZHUVA MURI, VAYALAR EAST VILLAGE, CHERTHALA - 688 536. 2. SASIKALA, W/O. PRABHAKARAN, KONNOTHARAYIL, UZHUVA MURI, VAYALAR EAST VILLAGE. 3. BIJIMOL, D/O. PRABHAKARAN, -DO- 4. PRAMOD, S/O. PRABHAKARAN, -DO- 5. B. GEETHA BAI,. KONNOTHUTHARAYIL, -DO- 6. P. PRAVEEN, -DO- THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.32342 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the 1st respondent in A.S.No.28 of 2002 on the file of the Sub Court, Cherthala. The above appeal is preferred by the 1st respondent against the dismissal of her suit O.S.No.532 of 1997, which was one for injunction and damages. The 2nd respondent/2nd defendant passed away during the pendency of the appeal. On the death of the 2nd respondent, appellant moved Ext.P2 application for impleadment of the legal representatives of the deceased 2nd respondent. That application was allowed by the court after issuing notice to the proposed legal representatives, with none of them raising any objection, vide Ext.P3 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P3 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. WPC.32342/09 2 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even the appellant had some doubt as to who are the legal representatives of the deceased 2nd respondent, and in her application, she had sought for adjudication of that question by the court before impleading the legal representatives as to who among them is/are competent to represent the estate of the deceased 2nd respondent in the appeal, according to the counsel. Without examining that question, for the sole reason that none of the proposed legal representatives had raised any objection to their impleadment, they were impleaded as additional respondents, is the grievance espoused by the petitioner/1st respondent to challenge the correctness of Ext.P3 order, submitting that the deceased 2nd respondent had preferred an appeal against the petitioner and in that appeal also as to who are competent to represent the deceased appellant in that appeal on his death, may emerge for consideration. So much so, the impugned order may cause prejudice to him not only in the present appeal but in the other appeal as well. I do not find any merit in the WPC.32342/09 3 apprehension canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Ext.P3 order in the present case, even if it has not been passed after conducting an enquiry as to who is/are the legal representatives of deceased 2nd respondent, to represent the interest or estate of the deceased in the appeal will have no impact in the orders to be rendered with respect to similar question in any other appeal or proceedings. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the court in the impleadment of the persons proposed as legal representatives of the deceased 2nd respondent as additional respondents in the appeal to represent his estate when none of them had raised any objection. Writ petition is accordingly closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp