High Court of KeralaOP(C)/3087/2014dismissed

Annakutty v. Rosamma Jaimole

2015-01-05Honourable Mr.Justice P.Bhavadasan4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/15TH POUSHA, 1936 OP(C).No. 3087 of 2014 (O) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

-------------- ANNAKUTTY, AGED 76 YEARS, W/O.LATE DEVASSYA, PUNCHAYIL HOUSE, ANAKKALLU P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.E.N.VISHNU NAMBOODIRI SRI.NARAYANAN.P.P SRI.S.P.SURESH KUMAR SRI.N.N.ELAYATH RESPONDENT(S):

-------------- ROSAMMA @ JAIMOLE, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O.K.J.CHACKO, KARAMBAKKAL HOUSE, VADAKARA P.O., ERATHU, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

OP(C).No. 3087 of 2014 (O) -------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------ EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS INDIGENT PERSON BEFORE THE SUB COURT, PALA. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

------------------------------------------------- O.P. ©. No. 3087 of 2014 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of January, 2015.

JUDGMENT

The complaint raised in this case is that the office of the Sub Court, Pala, without any justification, is refusing to receive the plaint on file. The suit was instituted by an indigent person and the petitioner's grievance is that the office had taken an objection that it is signed by the counsel engaged by the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that there is no prohibition in the counsel signing on behalf of the petitioner and the only necessity is that Order 33 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure should be complied with and that the petitioner should appear in person. It is also contended that the refusal on the part of the office is improper and illegal.

2. Except for the averment, there is no evidence to show that the plaint has been presented before the court below. There is no endorsement seen made by the office and

O.P.(C). 3087/2014.

if the petitioner has any grievance that the refusal to receive the plaint is improper and illegal, the proper course open to him is to bring this fact to the notice of the Presiding Officer concerned or atleast to the District Judge concerned. Reserving the liberty of the petitioner to resort to such action, this petition is dismissed.

P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE sb.