Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 55915
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1946 CRP NO. 835 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 13.09.2018 IN AS NO.77 OF 2016 OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT,ERNAKULAM REVISION PETITIONERS:
1 M.G. GOPINATH AGED 71 YEARS MANNALIL HOUSE, OCHANTHURUTH P.O., KOCHI - 682 508.
2 M.P. JOSHY AGED 68 YEARS MANNALIL HOUSE, OCHANTHURUTH P.O., KOCHI - 682 508.
3 M.P.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 63 YEARS MANNALIL HOUSE, OCHANTHURUTH P.O., KOCHI - 682 508.
4 SUMA MOHAN DAS AGED 53 YEARS W/O M.P. MOHAN DAS, MANNALIL HOUSE, OCHANTHURUTH P.O., KOCHI - 682 508.
5 NIDHISH, AGED 29 YEARS S/O M.P. MOHAN DAS, MANNALIL HOUSE, OCHANTHURUTH P.O., KOCHI - 682 508.
6 NEERAJ, AGED 26 YEARS S/O M.P. MOHAN DAS, MANNALIL HOUSE, OCHANTHURUTH P.O., KOCHI - 682 508.
7 M.P. LEKHA GOPICHAND, AGED 67 YEARS C/O ATMASINGH, MANGATTU HOUSE, OCHANTHURUTH P.O., KOCHI - 682 508.
8 M.P. AJITH BABU, AGED 55 YEARS MANNALIL HOUSE, AYYAMPILLI P.O., KOCHI - 682 501.
9 M.P. BINDU PUSHPANGADAN, AGED 48 YEARS CHERUNKAL HOUSE, ANDHAKARANAZHI P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688531.
0 M.P. JANAMMA RAMESAN, AGED 50 YEARS BLAMATH PARAMBIL HOUSE, VALLARPADOM P.O., PANAMPUKADU, KOCHI-682504.
11 M.P. SANIL KUMAR, AGED 45 YEARS MANNALIL HOUSE, OCHANTHURUTH P.O., KOCHI - 682 508.
BY ADV P.P.SUBHASH CHANDRAN RESPONDENTS:
1 DR. M.J. GEORGE AGED 53 YEARS S/O. VARKEY JACOB, MAZHUVANCHERY HOUSE, NORTH PARUR, PIN - 683 512.
2 DR.K.C.M. JACOB, AGED 50 YEARS S/O. VARKEY JACOB, MAZHUVANCHERY HOUSE, NORTH PARUR, PIN - 683 512.
3 KORATH, AGED 48 YEARS S/O. VARKEY JACOB, MAZHUVANCHERY HOUSE, NORTH PARUR, PIN - 683 512.
4 KUNJAMMA, AGED 52 YEARS W/O JACOB, MAZHUVANCHERY HOUSE, NORTH PARUR, PIN - 683 512.
5 DR. PAUL KORAH, BLOCK A 40, 6TH STREET, ANNA NAGAR EAST, CHENNAI-600102.
6 VARKEY KORATH KRIPA HOUSE, VIKAS NAGAR, ELAMKULAM-682020.
7 LILLY KORATH, KRIPA HOUSE, VIKAS NAGAR, ELAMKULAM, KADAVANTHRA-
682020.
8 MARTHA, PATH A-9, KUTHAB INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NEW DELHI-
110070.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 04.12.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.BABU , J.
-------------------------------------------------------
C.R.P.No.835 of 2018 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of December 2024
ORDER
The Challenge in this Revision Petition is to the order order dated 13.09.2018 in I.A.No. 4867/2018 in A.S.No.77/2016 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Ernakulam.
2. During the course of proceedings, respondent No.6 reported the death of respondents 1,3,4 and 7 and produced their death certificates.
3. The Revision Petitioners/appellants filed an application directing respondents 5 and 6 to furnish the details of the date of death and address of the legal heirs of respondents 1,3,4 and 7. Respondent No.6 filed a counter on behalf of himself and respondent No. 5 stating that they are not aware of the whereabouts of the legal heirs of the deceased respondents. The learned District Judge rejected the application on two grounds.
1) The petitioners had earlier filed I.A.No.8353/2016 seeking the same relief. But, while filing the present petition, they suppressed the same.
2) No steps were taken in time to implead the legal representatives of the deceased respondents.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
5. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are unable to get the address and other details of the legal heirs of respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 7. They seek a direction to the respondent 5 and 6 to furnish the details.
6. As I mentioned above, respondent No.6 has already filed an afÏdavit for himself and for and on behalf of respondent No.5 stating that they have no information about the whereabouts of the legal representatives of the deceased respondents. As per Order 22 Rule 10 A of the C.P.C., the duty of the counsel appearing for the deceased party ends with the reporting of the death of the party in the event of death. It is for the petitioners/appellants to resort to other remedies, like approaching the Competent Revenue Authorities for getting the details of the legal representatives of the deceased respondents.
The Civil Revision Petition lacks merits and it stands dismissed.
