The first respondent in an unnumbered appeal presented before the District Court, Kottayam is the petitioner in this writ petition. The appeal was filed against the decree passed in O.S.291 of 1996 filed by the petitioner on the file of principal Subordinate Judge’s Court, Kottayam.

2. The first respondent filed O.S.291 of 1996 against the Kaliyammanada Kshethra Bharana Samithy, represented by its president, Secretary and also against his own brother. A compromise decree was passed in the suit on 18.7.1997. The respondents 1 to 4 filed I.A.257 of 2004 under Sec. 96(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking leave to file appeal and I.A.258 of 2004 under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 2417 days in filing the appeal. The learned District Judge heard both these applications together and allowed by a common order. The plaintiff-first respondent in the unnumbered appeal has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders passed by the learned District Judge granting leave as well as condoning the delay.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has strenuously argued before me that while dealing with the Special Leave Application the lower appellate Court has virtually allowed the appeal itself. It is argued that the Court below allowed both the applications holding that the decree passed in the suit is a void one. It is contended that the suit was one filed in a representative capacity with due publication of the notice under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil procedure. It is argued that the respondents 1 to 4 were fully aware of the existence of the decree from 1997 onwards and the trial Court has not committed any illegality and acted with jurisdiction while decreeing the suit. It is argued that the Court below has not considered the Special Leave Application in its real perspective.

4. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 6 has argued that the decree happened to be passed due to the collusion between the plaintiff and the defendants in the suit and the decree was passed in violation of the mandatory provisions of law. It is argued that the order passed by the learned District Jude granting Special Leave is perfectly correct and does not call for any interference.

5. The suit was one for declaration of Karaima right claimed by the petitioner-plaintiff. The first defendant was the Managing Committee of Sree Kaliyammanada Kshethra Bharana Samithy, represented by its President. The second defendant was one Sukumaran Nair, the Secretary of the Samithy. The third defendant was the brother of the plaintiff himself. The defendants were impleaded in a representative capacity by invoking the provisions under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The copy of the decree produced along with the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 4 in this writ petition shows that the suit was settled out of Court and a compromise decree was passed on 18.7.1997.

6. The first three petitioners in the leave petition are ladies. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that they appeared and contested O.S.291 of 1996. The 4th petitioner also did not appear and contested the former suit. The address given in the petition shows that these four persons are members of an Association formed for the purpose of managing the affairs of the Kaliyammanada Kshethram. Their case is that they are highly aggrieved by the decree passed in the suit. According to the respondents 1 to 4 the decree happened to be passed on account of collusion between the parties to the suit. It was also averred that there was no publication of the notice under Order 1 Rule 8. It is also contended that there was no publication of the notice at the time of filing compromise. It was also contended that the decree passed is detrimental of the devotees of the temple. The contention of the first respondent was that the notice under Order 1 Rule 8 was published on 4.4.1992 and the s