Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Set aside
(i) The impugned order is set aside
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. XXII r. 3
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. On a reading of Ext.P5 order, I find that the learned Munsiff was absolutely not justified in dismissing the application for impleadment as not maintainable. If at all the address shown is defective, the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to furnish…
Judgment
PETITIONER/PETITIONER-PLAINTIFF: SHEEJA KUMARI, AGED 48 YEARS D/O APPUKUTTAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT THARAMEL, MADHAVA SADANAM, RADIO JUNCTION, ELAMPALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691561 BY ADV A.JANI(KOLLAM) RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONER-DEFENDANTS: 1 2 EASWARY AMMA, AGED 92 YEARS, D/O KUNJU PILLAI, RESIDING AT PERADATHU, VAYALIL VEEDU, JANAKEEYA NAGAR-18, ULIYAKOVIL P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691019 SIVAN PILLAI, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O LEKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, RESIDING AT PERADATHU VEEDU, ULIYAKOVIL P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691019 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C) No.871/24 -:2:- J U D G M E N T Ext.P5 order passed by the Munsiff Court, Kollam (for short, 'the trial court') is under challenge in this original petition.
The petitioner is the daughter of the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of tile and recovery of possession. The plaintiff died. After the death of the plaintiff, the petitioner filed an application under Order XXII Rule 3 of C.P.C to implead the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. The deceased left behind three children. Two children were sought to be impleaded as petitioners and one son was sought to be impleaded as additional defendant since he was staying abroad. However, the address of the son sought to be impleaded as additional defendant was shown at Kerala. Since the address at abroad was not shown, the application was dismissed as not maintainable as per the impugned order.
I have heard Sri.A.Jani, the learned counsel for the petitioner. OP(C) No.871/24 -:3:-
Operative part
On a reading of Ext.P5 order, I find that the learned Munsiff was absolutely not justified in dismissing the application for impleadment as not maintainable. If at all the address shown is defective, the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to furnish the correct address. Solely for the reason that the address shown is incorrect, it can never be said that the application is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to furnish the present address of the 3rd additional defendant. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Original Petition is disposed of as follows:
(i) The impugned order is set aside.
(ii) The petitioner shall furnish the present address of the additional 3rd defendant before the trial court.
(iii) The trial court is directed to allow the impleading application and issue notice to the additional 3rd defendant in the address so mentioned. Rp Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE OP(C) No.871/24 -:4:- APPENDIX OF OP(C) 871/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO: 862 OF 2017 PREFERRED BY PLAINTIFF'S FATHER BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM DATED 07/12/2017 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 29/11/2018 IN O.S NO: 862 OF 2017 A TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO: 6 OF 2023 IN O.S NO: 862 OF 2017 FILED ON 19/08.2923 UNDER ORDER XXII RULE 3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE A TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION TO EXHIBIT P 3 I.A NO: 6 OF 2023 IN O.S. NO: 862 OF 2017 BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM DATED 16/09/2023 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 23/01/2024 IN I.A. NO: 6 OF 2023 IN O.S NO: 862 OF 2017 F
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: (i) The impugned order is set aside
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. XXII r. 3.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.