IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP(C).No. 913 of 2010(O) ------------------------ OS.150/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT,VARKALA .................... PETITIONER (S): -------------------- ABDUL SAMAD, S/O. ABUBAKER, VAZHAVILA VEEDU, PERUMON DESOM, VETTOOR VILLAGE, VETTOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 141. BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SAIBA, W/O. SADIK, CHALAKKARA VEEDU, VETTOOR DESOM AND VILLAGE, VETTOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 141. 2. ASSINA, D/O SAIBA, CHALAKKARA VEEDU, VETTOOR DESOM AND VILLAGE, VETTOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 141. 3. SULFIKKAR, W/O. ASSINA, CHALAKKARA VEEDU, VETTOOR DESOM AND VILLAGE, VETTOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 141. 4. ASIYA ABILAK, D/O. ASSINA (MINOR), CHALAKKARA VEEDU, VETTOOR DESOM AND VILLAGE, VETTOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 141. 5. MUHAMMED KAIF, ASSINA (MINOR) CHALAKKARA VEEDU, VETTOOR DESOM AND VILLAGE, VETTOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 141. 6. MUHAMMED ERFAN, S/O. ASSINA (MINOR) CHALAKKARA VEEDU, VETTOOR DESOM AND VILLAGE, VETTOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 141. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.913 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of November, 2010. JUDGMENT Plaintiff No.1 in O.S.No.150 of 2009 of the court of learned Munsiff, Varkala is the petitioner before me. He is challenging dismissal of the suit on a finding that power of attorney executed by him in favour of plaintiff No.2 is not valid for the reason stated in the judgment. According to the petitioner, the power of attorney is perfectly valid and the learned Munsiff was not correct in treating the power of attorney as invalid in the way stated in the judgment. It is also the contention of petitioner that notwithstanding that defendants were exparte, they were permitted to address arguments in the case. 2. Now there is a dismissal of the suit on merit by a judgment followed by a decree. That decree is appealable. Hence proper course open to the petitioner is to prefer appeal and challenge dismissal of the suit on whatever grounds that are available to him. Without prejudice to the above right of petitioner this petition is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks