Akhil v. Mohanan
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court of Kerala quashed an impugned order allowing applications for impleadment without adjudicating the disputed question of legal representation under Order XXII Rule 5 CPC, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
What did the court decide?
The impugned order was set aside and the files were remanded to the Additional District Court, Mavelikkara, for deciding the applications afresh.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1940
OP(C).No. 1736 of 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN IA NO.550/14, 549/14 AND 535/14 IN AS 103/2011 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA DATED 2.12.2016
ORIGINAL PETITIONER/6TH RESPONDENT
AKHIL AGED 26, S/O.PADMAKARAN, KOCHUVILAYIL (KOCHU THUNDIL), VALLIKKUNNAM MURI, VALLIKKUNNAM VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
SRI.A.R.DILEEP SRI.MANU SEBASTIAN SRI.P.J.JOE PAUL
RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANTS:
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the District Judge was proper in allowing the application for impleadment without adjudicating the question of legal representation as required by Order XXII Rule 5 CPC.
Whether the definition of 'legal representative' under the CPC extends to persons who are not strict legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act but continue the cause of action.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Akhil
- respondent
Mohananan
- respondent
Shylaja
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court