IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2011 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1932 OP(C).No. 583 of 2011(O) ------------------------ OS.446/2006 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS 1 & 4 -------------------------------------------------- 1. PODIYAMMA, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O. ISRAYEL, THOPPIL CHIRAYIL HOUSE, THALAVADY SOUTH P.O., THALAVADY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. MONCY JACOB, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. ISRAYEL, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF ------------------------------------- T.I.RAJAN @ T.I.RAJAN KUNJU, THOPPIL CHIRAYIL HOUSE, THALAVADY SOUTH P.O., THALAVADY, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-689 572. BY ADVS. SRI.SATHISH NINAN SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.ARUN THOMAS SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: vk P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.(Civil). No. 583 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of March, 2011. JUDGMENT In this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the following relief is sought for: “(i) call for the entire records in O.S. 446/2006 of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Alappuzha and set aside the order dated 3.1.2011 in I.A. No.4354 of 2010 and I.A.33 of 2011 in O.S. 446/2006 (Ext.P3) and allow Ext.P2 and dismiss Ext.P1.” 2. The short facts are that the petitioners are defendants 1 and 4 in O.S.446 of 2006 before the Additional Munsiff's Court, Alappuzha. It appears that the earlier power of attorney holder had relinquished the power of attorney and a new power of attorney was appointed by the plaintiff in the case. The case of the defendants was that the power of attorney was not properly executed since the executant was not in station. The petitioners wanted to cross-examine O.P.(C).583/2011. 2 the deponent of the affidavit and moved I.A.33 of 2011 for the said purpose. The court below held that Order XIX Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked on the basis of an affidavit and dismissed I.A.33 of 2011. The said order is challenged. 3. It is unnecessary to go into the merits of the case since it is informed that the suit stands decreed on 28.2.2011. In the light of this fact, the I.A. 33 of 2011 does not survive for consideration. In the case the petitioner is aggrieved by the order, he may agitate the same if he chooses to file appeal against the decree in the suit. This original petition is without merits and it is dismissed. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.