AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J
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.
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.