IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 14TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 27136 of 2008(E) ----------------------------------------- (AGAINST ORDER IN I.A.NO.1489 OF 2008 IN UNNUMBERED O.S./2008 DTD. 22/08/2008 OF SUB COURT, KOCHI) PETITIONER: --------------------- MARGERT C.J., @ LISSY JOSEPH, AGED 43,D/O C.K. JOSEPH, RESIDING AT DOOR NO. C.C. 17/1889, CHAKKUMKAL HOUSE, MUNDAMVELI, KOCHI 682 007. BY ADV. SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. EPISCOPAL CURIA DIOCESE OF COCHIN, BISHOP HOUSE , FORT COCHIN, KOCHI -1, REP. BY HEREIN BY ITS VICAR GENERAL, FR. PETER, THAIKKOOTTATHIL. 2. FR. MONSIGNOR GEORGE MALATT, AGED ABOUT 75, VICAR, ST. LOUIS CHURCH, MUNDAM VELI, KOCHI -7. 3. C.J. JACOB @ JINU JACOB JOSEPH, AGED 29, HAVING RESIDENCE AT DOOR NO. C.C. 17/1889, CHAKKUMKAL HOUSE, MUNDENVELI, KOCHI 682 007 AND NOW RESIDING IN NABOODH, DUBAI. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== W.P.(C) NO.27136 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 5th day of September,2008 JUDGMENT This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India by the second plaintiff in a suit which was not received by Sub Court, Kochi eventhough an application was filed by the petitioner to produce the written authorisation by the first plaintiff authorising petitioner to institute the suit. Ext.P1 the plaint shows that petitioner and first plaintiff are brother and sister and first plaintiff is residing in Dubai and the suit was filed by both of them stating in paragraph 1 that first plaintiff duly authorised second plaintiff to institute the suit. An application was filed to receive the plaint signed by the second plaintiff on behalf of the first plaintiff also. I.A.1489/2008 was filed for granting time to produce the written authorisation. The order of the learned Sub Judge seen in Ext.P4 W.P.(C)27136/08 2 copy is to the effect that there is no written authorisation produced and suit can be received only on production of the written authorisation. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner pointed out that an identical question was considered by this Court in Narayanan Nair v. John Kurien (1988(1) K.L.T. 673) and the learned Judge (as His Lordship then was) analysing the decision held that Rule 14 of Order VI does not mandate production of written authorisation and a written authorisation is not indispensable for the proper compliance of the provisions of Rule 14. In the light of the said decision, learned Sub Judge is directed to receive the plaint, if petitioner files an affidavit to the effect that she is orally authorised by the first plaintiff to institute the suit on his behalf also. Learned Sub Judge may also grant time to produce written authorisation as sought for. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- W.P.(C)27136/08 3 M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006