N RAMCHANDRAN POTTI Vs. KUMARI THANKAM K K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 LA. 257 of 2004 under Section 96(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking leave to file appeal and LA. 258 of 2004 under Section 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.