IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 21210 of 2008(Y) -------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09/07/2008 IN IA 1902,1903/08 IN OP(E).13/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER : ------------------- U.P. VARKEY, S/O PAILY, THOZHUTHINKAL, MULAVOOR KARA, MULAVOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM) RESPONDENTS : ---------------------- MAKKAR , SON OF ALIYAR, VELIYATHUKUDIYIL HOUSE, MULAVOOR KARA, MULAVOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... WP(C).No. 21210 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF JULY, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the successful candidate and respondent, the petitioner in O.P(ele)No. 13 of 2005 on the file of Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P7 order passed by learned Munsiff in I.A.1902 of 2008 and 1903 of 2008. Petitioner had raised a contention in the election petition that election petition is bad for improper verification. Learned Munsiff passed an order on 5.6.2008, permitting election petitioner to cure the defect. What the respondent did was to correct the defect in the verification without filing an application or without getting specific permission from the court. It was thereafter I.A.1902 of 2008 and 1903 of 2008 were filed for correcting the defects and ratifying the action done without permission of court. Under Ext.P7 order learned Munsiff allowed the petitions, which is challenged in this petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. The argument of the learned counsel is that learned Munsiff Wp(c) 21210/2008 2 should not have allowed the applications by permitting petitioner to justify an illegal act. It was argued that even though court granted an opportunity to respondent to cure the defect in the verification, he is not entitled to cure the defect by suo motu amending the election petition without filing an application and without getting permission of the court and when it was done, court should not have allowed ratification of the illegal action. Though there is some force in the submission of the learned counsel, in the circumstances of the case, I do not find it necessary to interfere with Ext.P7 order. Petitioner is entitled to challenge Ext.P7 order along with the final order, if the order is against him. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-