REVI Vs. SHINY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondents.

(2.) The appeal is against an order passed by the Ist Additional Sub Judge, Thrissur on I.A No.5118 of 2015 in O.S No.17 of 2015, challenging maintainability of the original petition (indigent) filed by the appellant herein. According to the trial court, the original petition is barred under Order 23, Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'C.P.C'), even though the trial court has wrongly mentioned the provision as Order 23, Rule 4 C.P.C in the impugned order.

(3.) Facts, relevant, are stated in brief :-