FATHIMA KUNJU Vs. ABDUL REHMANKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER claims to be an assignee from the legal representatives of defendants 18 to 22 in O.S. No.25 of 1962 of the Munisff's Court, Kayamkulam where a preliminary decree was passed on 16.03.1966. That preliminary decree was modified by the Additional Sub Court, Mavelikkara in A.S. No.102 of 1966. Defendants 16 and 17 filed application for passing a final decree. A final decree was passed on 30.03.1971. Thereafter, petitioner (allegedly) purchased 53/200 shares allotted to defendants 18 to 22 from their legal representatives as per Ext.P3, assignment deed. Later petitioner filed I.A. No.1299 of 2012 to pass a supplementary final decree which the learned Munsiff dismissed as per impugned order. Challenge is to the said order.

(2.) SINCE by the impugned order, request of the petitioner to pass a supplementary final decree is dismissed, the remedy of petitioner is by way of appeal as held in Perumal Vaidyar and Others v. Devi and Others (1991 [1] KLJ 65, paragraph 17). In view of the decision in Janardhanan v. Chandramathy (1996 [2] KLT 545) even without drawing up of a decree it may be open to the petitioner to challenge the order refusing to pass supplementary final decree in appeal. Since remedy of appeal is available, this Original Petition cannot be entertained. Resultantly, the Original Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of petitioner to challenge the impugned order by way of appeal as provided under the law.