IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 34010 of 2004(W)
1. ABRAHAM VARKEY, S/O.ABRAHAM, AGED 56,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SAJI DANIEL, S/O.DANIEL, CHELLAKKATTU
... Respondent
2. K.B.CHACKO, S/O.T.CHACKO, R/A.
3. BIJU.P. S/O.PAPPACHAN, R/A. PALLIPADI-
4. SAJI THOMAS, R/A. KANNUKIZHAKKETHIL
5. ROSAMMA CHACKO, W/O.K.B.CHACKO,
6. ROBIN CHACKO, S/O.K.B.CHACKO OF DO.
7. JOBIN CHACKO, S/O.K.B.CHACKO DO. DO.
For Petitioner :SRI.K.S.SAJEEV KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :18/06/2007
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
..........................................................
W.P.(C)No.34010 OF 2004
...........................................................
DATED THIS THE 18TH JUNE, 2007
J U D G M E N T
This Writ Petition is remaining defective on the reason that
though notice on admission was issued as far back as on 26.11.2004,
the petitioner has not remitted process. The learned counsel for the
petitioner seeks time on the reason that the file is misplaced.
2. In all probability the file has been returned to the counsel in
the court below since this Court did not grant stay. I find from Ext.P4
impugned order that under that order the court has only allowed
impleadment of additional defendants and permitted incorporation of
certain amendments found necessary by the court below. Having
regard to the principles to govern exercise of power under Order VI
Rule 17 C.P.C., I do not find any warrant for interfering with Ext.P4
under Article 227. Moreover, it is seen that the trial of the suit was
permitted to go on and in all probability the Writ Petition has become
infructuous. The Writ Petition will stand dismissed on that basis.
(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)
tgl
WP(C)N0.
-2-
WP(C)N0.
-3-