IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2009 / 2ND POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37316 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11/11/2009 IN I.A 8091/2009 IN OS.494/2009 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- T.S. JAYASREE, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O. MANOHARAN, PATTUCHIRAKKAL HOUSE, P.O. PERUMBALAM, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DIST. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 18/143, CPWD QUARTERS, INDIRA NAGAR, ADAYAR, CHENNIA 600 020, TAMILNADU. BY ADV. MR.C.VATHSALAN MR.GHOSH YOHANNAN MR.K.RAKESH ROSHAN MS.THUSHARA.V RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. MRS. K. SUSEELA, AGED 76 YEARS, W/O. T.V. SANKU, NO. 31-99 F, SREEDEVI, RALL NAGAR ROAD, PONURUNNI, VYTTILA POST, COCHIN -19. 2. T.S. SUSANTHAN AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. T.V. SANKU, SREESYLAM, MUNDEMPALLY, BEHIND AYYAPPA THEATRE, POST PANANGAD COCHIN. 3. T.S. IVAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. T.V.S ANKUM NO. 31-99F SREEDEVI, RAIL NAGAR ROAD, PONNURUNNI VYTTILA POST, COCHIN -19. 4. MR. RANA DWIVEDI AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. ANANTHANARAYAN, THAILAM PARAMBIL, THRIKOTTOOR DESOM, TIKKODY VILLAGE, TIKKODY P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-29. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.37316 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.494 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. Suit is one for partition. Service as against one of the defendants, 4th defendant in the suit is yet to be completed and he is stated to be serving in the Indian Army. When summons issued in the suit to that defendant from the court returned unserved, petitioner/plaintiff applied for substituted service by publication. Noticing that the 4th defendant is serving in the Indian Army request made by the plaintiff was turned down vide Ext.P4. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P4 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. 3. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances present with reference to Ext.P4 order, I find no impropriety or illegality in the order W.P.(C).No.37316 of 2009 - O 2 passed by the learned Additional Sub Judge holding that the substituted service as against the 4th defendant cannot be allowed. Writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-