K M JISHNU DAMODARAN Vs. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be the legal representative of late K.M.Narayanan Namboodirippad, who was the decree holder in O.S.No.307 of 1986 on the file of Munsiff Court, Manjery. The suit was for redemption of a mortgage. Ext.P1, dated 30.06.1988 is the decree in O.S.No.307 of 1986. The appeal impugned in the said decree filed as A.S.No.46 of 1992 was dismissed by the Sub Court, Manjeri on 7.7.2001. Thereafter, the Regular Second Appeal instituted in the matter as R.S.A.No.399 of 2003 was also dismissed by this Court on 15.6.2007. As per Ext.P1 decree, the Munsiff Court had directed the decree holder to deposit a sum of Rs.750/- on or before 31.7.1988 or any later date upto which time for payment may be extended by the court. It is further stated that the decree holder remitted the amount of Rs.750/- on 29.8.2011 and prayed for extension of time by filing Ext.P2 I.A.No.1418 of 2011 in the above original suit. Pending enquiry in Ext.P2 I.A., the decree holder had died and the petitioner, who claims himself to be the sole beneficiary of the registered will executed by the decree holder Late.K.M.Narayanan Namboodirippad, had filed Ext.P3 I.A.No.1239 of 2015 to get himself impleaded as supplementary second petitioner. It is further stated that the trial court under the mistaken impression that it has no jurisdiction to extend the time limit, as the decree was taken up in appeal, had dismissed Ext.P2 I.A., as per the impugned Ext.P4 order dated 17.7.2015. Consequently, the trial court had passed orders, dismissing Ext.P3 I.A.No.1239 of 2015, as per Ext.P5 order dated 17.7.2015. Ext.P5(a) is the order dated 17.7.2015 in I.A.No.1417 of 2011, dismissing the consequential amendment sought for in the matter of the plea for amendment. The orders under challenge in this original petition are those at Ext.P4 and Ext.P5 series, viz, Exts.P5 and P5(a).

(2.) Heard Sri.U.K.Devidas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.T.K.Sandeep, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(3.) The main order under challenge in this original petition is the one at Ext.P4 whereby, Ext.P2 I.A. has been dismissed. Ext.P2 order reads as follows: