POTTANKANDY MEETHAL SANKARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER -plaintiff filed O.S. No.146 of 2011 in the Munsiff's Court, Vadakara for recovery of money with the State of Kerala, represented by the Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority as the defendant. The State of Kerala raised a contention that the suit is not maintainable as there is no notice issued under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and as the Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority is not the competent authority to represent the State of Kerala. While so, petitioner got the Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority impleaded supplemental defendant and certain amendment was also made to the plaint confining relief in the suit as against the supplemental defendant. Exhibit P2 is the amended plaint. Learned Munsiff found that the suit is not maintainable for the reason aforesaid and ordered the plaint to be returned. Exhibit P1, order to that effect is under challenge.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner submits that it was by a mistake that in the plaint, the State of Kerala was stated to be represented by the Executive Engineer of the Kerala Water Authority. Learned counsel submitted that as per the amended plaint (Ext.P2) no relief is being claimed against the State of Kerala. Learned counsel submitted that within two weeks from this day, appropriate application will be filed in the trial court to delete State of Kerala from the array of defendants in the suit.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for 2nd respondent has a contention that in the absence of State of Kerala in the party array, petitioner is not entitled to any relief and that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. I make it clear that it is open to the 2nd respondent to take up whatever defences as are available to it and raised in the written statement.