IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 14588 of 2008(J)
1. M/S.PIONEER SHOPPING COMPLEX (P) LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE PIONEER TOWERS OWNERS ASSOCIATION,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RADHAKRISHNAN (1)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :21/05/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
...........................................
WP(C).No. 14588 OF 2008
............................................
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF MAY, 2008
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India to quash Ext.P2 order passed by Additional Sub Judge,
Ernakulam in I.A.2663 of 2008 in O.S. 174 of 1999. Ext.P1 is that
application. It was filed under Order I Rule 10 and Section 151
of Code of Civil Procedure to substitute the original plaintiff.
Original plaintiff was Pioneer Towers Owners Association. Suit
was instituted by the Association represented by its President,
Vice-President, Secretary and Joint Secretary. That association
was registered under Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and
Charitable Societies Registration Act 1955, with registration
No.ER 1365 of 1998. Affidavit filed along with I.A.2663 of 2008
shows that it was claimed by the Secretary of Pioneer Towers
Owners Welfare Association, who claims to substitute as
plaintiff, that their association was registered with registration
No. FR/531/05 and that association was formed in substitution of
the original plaintiff association. Case of the petitioner is that
the trial court did not consider the right of Pioneer Towers
Owners Welfare Association to substitute as plaintiffs.
WP(C)14588/2008 2
2. Ext.P2 order reads as follows:-
“Perused records. The suit is
posted for recording evidence
during vacation. I.A allowed”.
3. Ext.P1 shows that the petition was prepared only on
5.4.2008. In such circumstances, it is clear that Ext.P2 order
was passed without considering the objections that would have
been available to the petitioner to be raised. In such
circumstances, Ext.P2 order is quashed.
4. Learned Sub Judge is directed to hear the parties and
pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is submitted
that petitioner has already filed objection before the trial court.
It is made clear that the right of respondents to get themselves
substituted is not considered on merits in this petition.
Petition disposed accordingly.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE
lgk/-