IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 391 of 2008()
1. BRIJITHA, AGED 78, W/O.LATE MATHEW,
... Petitioner
2. JOLLY THOMACHAN, AGED 46,
3. JESSY VINCENT, AGED 34,
Vs
1. GEORGE, AGED ABOUT 72, S/O.THOMAS,
... Respondent
2. ANTONY, AGED ABOUT 68, S/O.THOMAS,
3. A.T.MARY, AGED ABOUT 66, W/O.ANTONY,
4. JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 85, S/O.LATE GERVASIS
5. BABU, AGED ABOUT 46, S/O.JOSEPH,
6. TESSY JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 70,
7. RAJESH.T.JOSEPH, AGED 43,
8. MAREENA RABEL, AGED 45, D/O.LATE JOSEPH,
9. SEENA THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 40,
10. SHERLY DAVIS, AGED ABOUT 67,
11. SAMSON DAVIS, AGED ABOUT 45,
12. STALIN DAVIS, AGED ABOUT 42,
13. SOLOMON DAVIS, AGED 39,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :22/05/2008
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar,J.
=======================
C.R.P No.391 of 2008
=======================
Dated this the 22nd day of May 2008
O R D E R
Petitioners filed an application for passing of
final decree pursuant to the preliminary decree in
O.S.326/1994 on the file of Munsiff Court, Aluva as
confirmed by District Court, North Paravur in
A.S.36/1999. Learned Munsiff returned the final
decree application to represent the same curing the
defects. This revision petition is filed under
section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure
contending that the reasons stated by the learned
Munsiff are not sustainable. It is submitted that
the legal heirs of those defendants, who died,
were already impleaded in A.S.36/1999 and they were
shown in the final decree application and
therefore there is no necessity to implead them
separately by filing an impleading application.
It was also submitted that some of the shares were
already purchased and it is not necessary to pass a
CRP 391/08 2
supplementary preliminary decree. These are matters
which are to be stated by the petitioners before
the trial court. In view of proviso to Section
115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, revision is not
maintainable. Petitioners are at liberty to
represent the final decree application explaining
the reasons as stated in this petition. If so
represented learned Munsiff to pass appropriate
orders in the application in accordance with law.
Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with the
observation made earlier.
M.Sasidharan Nambiar
Judge
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
———————
CRL.R.P.NO. /08
———————
ORDER
MARCH,2008