Kiran John Rajan vs Sakhi Philip

C.S Dias, J

As the parties are same in both these original petitions, they have been disposed of by this common judgment. O.P. (C) No.1147/2021 is filed by the impleading petitioner in I.A 1/2021 in O.S.48/2021 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam, challenging the order dated 9.3.2021 in I.A No.1/2021 in the above suit condoning the delay of 1092 days in representing the plaint. O.P(C) No.1734/2021 is filed by the plaintiff in the suit challenging the order dated 16.9.2021 in I.A 4/2021 passed in the suit permitting the impleadment of the 1st respondent in the above original petition as a party in the suit. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status and pleadings in OP(C) 1734/2021, wherever the context so requires.

The petitioner is the plaintiff in Ext.P1 plaint filed for partition. She is one of the daughters of late C.J.George. The respondents 2 to 7 are her siblings and the 8th respondent is the partnership firm where the deceased C.J.George was the Managing Partner. The 1st respondent, the son of the deceased 7th defendant in the suit, had filed Ext.P4 application to get himself impleaded in the suit. The same was opposed by the petitioner who filed Ext.P5 objection. The court below by the impugned Ext.P7 order has permitted the impleadment of the 1st respondent. The petitioner assails Ext.P7 order in O.P (C ) 1734/2021.

The 1st respondent has filed OP (C) 1147/2021, challenging Ext.P3 order on the ground that the court below has by a cryptic one-liner and without sufficient cause condoned the delay of 1092 days in representing the plaint.

Heard; Sri.Shiju Varghese, the learned appearing for the petitioner in OP(C) No.1734/021, Sri.Gibi.C.George, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in OP(C) No.1147/2021 and Sri.V.Philip Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in the above original petitions.

The point that arises for consideration in these original petitions is whether Ext.P7 order in O.P. 1734/2021 and Ext.P3 order in O.P(C) No.1147 of 2021 are sustainable in law.

The specific case of the 1st respondent in  Ext.P4 application  was that  he  is  the  son  of  the  deceased C.J.Rajan, who was the 7th defendant in the suit. The suit was filed without disclosing the death of Sri.C.J.Rajan. Material facts have been suppressed in Ext.P1 plaint. The 1st respondent has a right over the properties scheduled in the plaint. His father had an interest in the firm, which the 1st respondent is entitled to inherit. The 1st respondent is interested in the outcome of the suit. If the suit is decided in his absence, it would prejudicially affect his interest.

Even though the application was resisted by the respondents, the court below on considering the fact that the 1st respondent is none other than the son of the deceased 7th defendant in the suit, deemed it appropriate that the 1st respondent should be impleaded as a party in the suit. I do not find any irregularity or illegality in Ext.P7 order, permitting the impleadment of the 1st respondent, who is undisputedly a legal representative of the deceased 7th defendant in the suit and has a right to be on the party array. In fact, the plaintiff is obliged to bring the legal representatives of the deceased 7th defendant on record on her motion, rather than he requesting to be brought on record. There is no illegality in Ext.P7 order.

The 1st respondent has challenged Ext.P3 order, whereby the court below has condoned the representation delay of 1092 days in representing Ext.P1 plaint. The suit was filed well within the period of limitation. The petitioner has specifically pleaded the reasons that prevented her from representing the plaint within the stipulated time period. I find the petitioner has stated sufficient reasons in the affidavit in support of Ext.P2 application to condone the delay. It was after considering

the above aspects, especially since the matter was concerning the court and the plaintiff, the court below passed Ext.P3 order and condoned the delay I do not find any illegality in the court below not giving elaborate reasons for condoning the delay. There is no merit in the original petitions.

In the result, Both the original petitions are dismissed.