This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 30th June 2012 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Umargaom, below Exh.1-A, in Regular Civil Suit No.8 of 2012, by which, the application of the petitioner, original plaintiff, came to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not furnished details about the persons and houses represented by him, though he hails from the same small village, so as to issue notice under Order 1-Rule 8-sub-rule (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the alternate option of service by a public advertisement was also considered by the learned Judge, while distinguishing the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chairman, Tamilnadu Housing Board vs. T.N.
Ganpathy, reported in AIR 1990 SC 642. The learned Judye has given a finding to the extent that it was not difficult nor impracticable for the petitioner to find out and furnish names and addresses of the persons represented by him. In the above background, having heard the learned advocates for the petitioner, in my view, while passing the impugned order, the trial court has not committed any error of law or jurisdictional error, which calls for any interference by this Court in exercise of power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India on such simple finding and conclusion. Hence, this petition is rejected with no order as to costs.
(ANANT S. DAVE, J.) (swamy) Top