IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2008 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No.36256 of 2008 (N) ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.7955/2008 IN OS.485/2006 of PRL.M.C.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- PRABHAKARAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, VARUVILAKATHU VEEDU, VIJAYABHAVAN, KURISSUMUTTOM MURI, VILAPPIL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.SATHIQ RESPONDENT: --------------- K. SUKUMARAN, S/O. KOCHAPPI, NEDIYAVILA VEEDU, KURISSUMUTTOM MURI, VILAPPIL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.36256 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the second defendant in O.S.485/06 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram and the respondent is the plaintiff therein. First defendant in the suit is the brother of the petitioner. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that under due authorisation of the petitioner/ second defendant the first defendant filed a joint written statement (Ext.P2) on his own behalf and on behalf of the petitioner, but the learned Munsiff accepted the written statement as one filed by the first defendant only and set the petitioner/second defendant ex parte on 04/08/08; that to set aside the ex parte order Ext.P3 application was filed by the petitioner in the court below, but the court below has vide Ext.P4 order dismissed W. P. C. No.36256 of 2008 -2- the said petition observing that there is no sufficient ground to set aside the ex parte order as the second defendant has not filed written statement. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner/second defendant is that Order VI Rule 14 of the C.P.C by proviso thereunder, enables written statement being filed by a person duly authorised by the defendant and that in view of the decision of this Court in Narayanan Nair v. John Kurien (1988(1) KLT 673) even oral authorisation would be sufficient and that no written authorisation need be there for the first defendant to sign the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner/second defendant as well. In view of the decision cited and considering the nature of the case and the fact that joint written statement has been filed by the first defendant on his own behalf and on behalf of his brother, the second defendant who is the W. P. C. No.36256 of 2008 -3- petitioner, it is only proper that the written statement signed by the first defendant also on behalf of the second defendant is accepted as the written statement of both the defendants and ex parte order against the petitioner/second defendant is set aside. 2. It is also worthy to note that the authorisation given by the petitioner to the first defendant to file a joint written statement on his behalf as well, is evidenced also by the affidavit accompanying Ext.P3 petition wherein the second defendant has sworn that the first defendant was filing written statement on his own behalf and on behalf of himself as authorised by him. 3. In the result, I set aside Ext.P4 order and set aside the ex parte order passed against the petitioner/second defendant allowing Ext.P3 application. This Writ Petition is thus, allowed. Inasmuch as this W. P. C. No.36256 of 2008 -4- Writ Petition is disposed of without notice to the respondent, the petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment in the court below forthwith with notice to counsel for the respondent in the court below so as to enable the court below to proceed further with the case accepting the written statement filed by the first defendant as written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner/second defendant as well. 4. Issue copy of this judgment to the counsel for the petitioner urgently. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-