Revision against order permitting withdrawal of suit filed by plaintiffs. Court upheld lower court's discretion noting failure to effect required publication under Order I Rule 8 CPC was already addressed. Revised dismissed.
Revision petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1930
CRP.No. 835 of 2008 --------------------------------IA 313/2008 IN OS.258/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHANGANACHERRY ....................
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:
BY ADV. SMT.ELIZABETH MATHAI IDICULLA SRI.RACHEL P.MATHEW SRI.MOHAN IDICULLA ABRAHAM SRI.MARTIN D.ALUMKARA SMT.PUSHPY B.MURICKEN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K.P. Balachandran, J.
C.R.P.No.835 of 2008
ORDER
Heard counsel for the petitioner.
The order passed by the court below has dealt with
the contentions so advanced and has found in paragraph 14 of the impugned order that though
CRP 835/08
2
publication was ordered on petition seeking leave under Order I Rule 8 CPC, publication had not been effected and consequently that petition was
dismissed. Certain other contentions were also raised before the trial court other than the one raised before me and the trial court found on merits that the contentions advanced are not tenable and that the suit is liable to fail on account of the formal defects pointed out in the application for withdrawal. It was in those circumstances that leave was granted to the respondents/plaintiffs to withdraw the suit with leave to institute fresh suit on the same cause of action. The order cannot be faulted. There is no merit in this revision assailing the said order.
This revision petition is, hence, dismissed.
28th November, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether public notice is mandatory for permitting withdrawal of a suit filed in a representative capacity.
Whether the lower court properly exercised its discretion in granting leave to withdraw the suit despite formal defects.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S.A.B.S.Association Conv., Mammoodu
Mother Anit Chalangadi
Sister Ritty
Agnusamma
Philip
K.P. Balachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
