IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18268 of 2009(O)
1. KAILASAN,KAILAS BHAVAN,KEERIKKAD
... Petitioner
Vs
1. S.N.D.P.SAKHAYOGAM NO.334,KEERIKKAD
... Respondent
2. K.PEETHAMBARAN,CHERUVALLIL PADEETTATHIL,
3. K.M.BABU,DEVASWOM SECRETARY,
4. RADHAKRISHNAN,KUTTIKKATTU THEKKETHIL,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SREEKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :30/06/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.18268 of 2009 - O
---------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.477/2004
on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kayamkulam. Suit was one for
declaration and injunction. Permission to institute the suit in a
representative capacity invoking Order I Rule 8 CPC was applied
for seeking the reliefs claimed in the suit which was allowed by
the court ordering publication. The order so passed by the court
was not noted in the A Diary and petitioner came to know of it
only at a later stage and as such he could not make the
publication, is the case of the petitioner. Seeking indulgence of
court to effect publication stating the aforesaid grounds,
petitioner moved an application. Ext.P1 is the copy of that
application. Learned Munsiff after considering the merit of that
application found it not entertainable and it was dismissed.
Ext.P2 is the copy of that order. Impeaching the correctness and
propriety of Ext.P2 order, petitioner has filed this writ petition
invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
W.P.(C).No.18268 of 2009 – O
2
2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner.
3. Having regard to the submissions made and the facts
and circumstances presented, I find no impropriety or illegality in
Ext.P2 order passed by the learned Munsiff. The case was
included in the list and after closing of the trial, petitioner applied
for publication setting forth a case that he had no knowledge of
the order passed by the court earlier. Suit was filed in a
representative capacity and no decree thereunder could have
been passed without effecting publication need not be pointed
out. So the plea canvassed by the petitioner that the order
passed by the court directing publication was not noted in A diary
need be taken note only for its rejection. After the trial
commenced no purpose will be served by publication under Order
I Rule 8 CPC. In that view of the matter, I find the dismissal of
the application by the learned Munsiff is unquestionable .
The writ petition is dismissed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE.
bkn/-