High Court Kerala High Court

Kumaran vs Maman on 2 April, 2009

Kerala High Court
Kumaran vs Maman on 2 April, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RSA.No. 1039 of 2004(F)


1. KUMARAN, S/O. MATTAYI NARAYANAN,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. JANAKI, D/O. DO. IN  DO.  DO.
3. VALLI, D/O. DO.  IN DO.  DO.
4. LAKSHMI, D/O.  DO.  IN DO.  DO.
5. DEVAKI, D/O.  DO.  IN DO.  DO.
6. VASANTHA, D/O. DO. IN   DO.  DO.
7. SANTHAKUMARI, D/O. VELU,  DO.  DO.
8. MEENAKSHI, W/O. MATTAYI NARAYANAN,

                        Vs



1. MAMAN, S/O. KAVULIYALUKKAL KARAPPAN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. KRISHNAN, S/O. MATTAYI NARAYANAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.)

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN

 Dated :02/04/2009

 O R D E R
               K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J.
           ------------------------------------------------
           I. A. Nos.2118 of 2008, 2119 of 2008,
            C. M. Application No.718 of 2008 &
                  R. S. A. No.1039 of 2004
           ------------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2009

                          JUDGMENT

These are applications filed by the

appellants to implead the LRs of deceased

first respondent as additional respondents 3

to 11 setting aside abatement condoning delay

of 590 days in filing application to set aside

abatement.

2. Additional respondents 3, 4 and 6

sought to be impleaded have filed objection

objecting to the impleadment setting aside

abatement condoning the delay. The objection

is that the reasons stated for condonation of

delay is that the appellants were not aware of

the necessity of impleading legal representatives

of the deceased first respondent though the

first respondent died on 21/09/06 and that

only on receipt of intimation from counsel to

R. S. A. No.1039 of 2004 -2-

furnish details of the legal representatives

for impleadment, he became aware that the LRs

are to be impleaded and that it took some time

to collect the details of the numerous legal

representatives and that therefore, the delay

be condoned. According to the respondents,

their ignorance of law and procedure is not a

ground to condone the delay and to set aside

the abatement.

3. It is seen that the deceased first

respondent is the sole defendant in the suit

as the second respondent is the 7th plaintiff

and appellants are plaintiffs 1 to 6 and 8 and

9. When the sole defendant who is the first

respondent dies naturally the legal

representatives should have been brought on

record in time. In the instant case, the first

petitioner who is the widow of the deceased

sole respondent has sworn that they were aware

R. S. A. No.1039 of 2004 -3-

of the death of the first respondent on

21/09/06. Their case is that they were not

aware of the need to implead the LRs of the

first respondent who is the sole defendant in

their suit. If at all they were not aware as

to the procedure to be adopted on the death of

the sole defendant in their case, they should

have contacted their counsel and done the

needful. They have slept over their rights for

more than two years and have filed these

applications for impleadment setting aside

abatement and to condone the delay of 590 days

in filing application to set aside the

abatement as late as on 27/09/08. Other than

his widow, the late first respondent was

having three sons and five daughters and

nobody has taken any interest to do the

needful in their case despite their knowledge

that the sole defendant in their case is dead.

R. S. A. No.1039 of 2004 -4-

In the circumstances, I do not see any ground

to allow the impleadment of the LRs of the

deceased first respondent as additional

respondents 3 to 11 setting aside the

abatement condoning the delay of as much as

590 days in filing the application to set

aside the abatement.

4. In the result, I dismiss all these

applications.

R.S.A.1039/04

I.A.2118/08, I.A.2119/08 and C.M.

Application No.718/08 are dismissed today

disallowing impleadment of LRs of the deceased

first respondent setting aside abatement

condoning the inordinate delay of 590 days in

fling the application to set aside abatement.

The first respondent was the sole defendant in

the suit as the second respondent is the 7th

plaintiff who goes along with the appellants.

R. S. A. No.1039 of 2004 -5-

The result is that this appeal has abated.

In the result, this appeal is closed.

K.P.BALACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
kns/-