IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2011 / 20TH ASHADHA 1933 SA.No. 306 of 1998() -------------------- AS.65/1996 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM OS.82/1988 of MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/2ND PLAINTIFF: -------------- RAGHAVA PANICKER CHANDRASENA PANICKER SANTHALAYATHIL VEEDU, KOTTAMPALLI MURI OACHIRA VILLAGE, KOLLAM BY ADV. SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.R.SUDHEER RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 2 AND 5 TO 9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.PADMANABHAN CHANDRABOSS, CHERUPARAPADEETTATHIL KOTTAMPALLI MURI, OACHIRA VILLAGE, KOLLAM 2. KUNJUKUNJU BHASURANGAN, KAIDANGIL VEEDU )( KARUNAGAPPALLY MURI, VAVVAKKAVU PO )(DIED 3. VELUTHATHANKAMMA, CHARUVARA VEEDU KOTTAMPALLY MURI, OACHIRA VILLAGE, KOLLAM 4. AMMAKUNJU PANCHAMI, AMBALASSERIL THARAYIL KOTTAMPALLI MURI, OACHIRA VILLAGE, KOLLAM 5. KUNJUKRISHNAN BHANUDASAN, CHERUVARA VEEDU KOTTAMPALLI MURI, OACHIRA VILLAGE , KOLLAM 6. DEVARAN, CHERUVARA VEEDU, KOTTAMPALLY MURI -DO- (IT IS RECORDED AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLATN THAT THE LRS OF THE DECEASED R2 ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES IN THE SECOND APPEAL AND HENCE IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO IMPLEAD THEM IN THE SECOND APPEAL AS PER ORDER DT.28.6.07 IN SA VIDE MEMO DT.18.6.2007 (CF NO.2867/07) ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR FOR R1 SRI.K.MONI FOR R2 THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.07.2011 THE COURT ON 11/07/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- SA No.306 of 1998-C ------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of July 2011 Judgment The appellant has filed IA No.1596/11 in this second appeal, praying that he may be permitted to withdraw OS No.82/86 of the Munsiff's Court, Karunagappally, with liberty to institute a fresh suit. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is pointed out that the suit was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of their rights over a temple and its properties and for other reliefs. It is stated that by a bona fide omission, the present administrative committee of the temple was omitted to be brought on the party array. Since the defect is not curable, permission is sought to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. 3. The petition is not opposed to by the respondents. Accordingly, the IA is allowed and OS No.82/88 of the Munsiff's Court, Karunagappally is SA No.306/98 2 permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit in respect of the same subject matter. In view of the withdrawal of OS No.82/88, this appeal is only to be dismissed. I do so. No order as to costs. P.Bhavadasan, Judge sta SA No.306/98 3