Mrs. Prasanna vs Janaki @ Sreedevi Amma on 16 November, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP No. 1014 of 2005()


1. MRS. PRASANNA, D/O. CHENDALATH
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. JANAKI @ SREEDEVI AMMA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O. CHANDALATH GOVINDAN

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :16/11/2007

 O R D E R
                                                K.T. SANKARAN, J.

                   ...................................................................................

                                         C.R..P. No. 1014  OF   2005

                      ...................................................................................

                                  Dated this the  16th November, 2007




                                                       O R D E R

The plaintiff in O.S.No. 144 of 2002 on the file of the court of the I Addl.

Subordinate Judge, Thrissur, challenges the order dated 29th September, 2005

in I.A.No.4692 of 2004, by which the court below allowed the application for

impleading filed by Janaki @ Sreedeviamma to get herself impleaded as the

additional second defendant.

2. The plaintiff, Prasanna, and the defendant Pradeepkumar are the

children of Janaki @ Sreedeviamma. The suit was filed by Prasanna for

mandatory injunction directing Pradeepkumar to vacate the plaint schedule

house. Prasanna contended that the plaint schedule property belonged to her

as per a sale deed executed by the mother in her favour. The defendant

contended that the sale deed executed in her favour was under coercion. It was

also contended by him that the sale deed was subsequently cancelled by the

mother as per another deed and thereafter the mother had executed the

settlement deed in favour of the defendant pending the suit. The mother filed an

application for impleading herself as the additional second defendant. The

prayer was opposed by the plaintiff. It was even contended that the mother had

not filed the application on her own but the defendant was instrumental for filing

C.R..P. No. 1014 OF 2005

2

such an application which is not really genuine. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that it was even submitted before the court below that the

mother may be directed to be present before the court to ascertain the truth or

otherwise of the application.

3. The court below allowed the application by a cryptic order which reads

as follows:

“Heard. I.A. allowed.”

Since the court below has not considered the application on the merits and has

not dealt with the contentions put forward by the parties, the order is liable to be

set aside on that short ground.

4. The first respondent, Janaki @ Sreedeviamma died after the filing of

the revision. To continue to prosecute this revision, it is necessary for the

revision petitioner to implead the legal representatives of the deceased 1st

respondent. Two of the legal representatives of the 1st respondent are already

on record and therefore, I am of the view that there is no abatement. The order

passed by the court below is not a speaking order. I am of the view that it is not

necessary to drag all the other legal representatives to this court as additional

respondents and then dispose of the Civil Revision Petition. Since estate of the

mother is substantially represented by the plaintiff and the defendant, I am of

the view that the revision can be proceeded with, without impleading the other

C.R..P. No. 1014 OF 2005

3

legal representatives of the mother.

Accordingly, the order impugned is set aside. The court below is directed

to consider the application afresh and dispose of the same. Since the person

who has sought to get herself impleaded as additional second defendant is no

more now, it is for her legal representatives to decide , whether that application

should be continued or not. If any such application for impleading is filed by the

the legal representatives of the deceased, any person intending to oppose such

a prayer would be entitled to file objections. The court below shall consider all

such objections and dispose of the matter afresh in the light of the subsequent

developments as well, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within three

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If no application is filed

by any person to substitute him or her as petitioner in I.A.No.4692 of 2004,

within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the

court below shall close I.A.No. 4692 of 2004 as unnecessary.

The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above.

K.T. SANKARAN,

JUDGE.

lk