IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 20TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3624 of 2010(O) ------------------------- OS.261/2006 of MUNSIFF'S COURT,KAYAMKULAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- PADMAVATHI, AMPILETHU PADEETTATHIL, PATHIYOOR EAST MURI, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI. R.KRISHNA RAJ RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. MADHU VENNIYIL HOUSE, PATHIYOOR EAST MURI, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE. 2. RETHNAMMA, VENNIYIL HOUSE, PATHIYOOR EAST MURI, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). No. 3624 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner who is a stranger to O.S. No. 261 of 2006 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kayamkulam, seeks a direction to the court below to dispose of I.A. No. 237 of 2010 expeditiously before proceeding with the trial of the said suit. 2. The said suit filed by the respondents herein is one for injunction restraining the Government from evicting the plaintiff from the puramboke land in question. According to the writ petitioner, herself and four others had filed a complaint before the Sub Divisional Magistrate alleging that the respondents herein had encroached into the Pamba Irrigation Project (PIP) Canal puramboke used as a public way and the Sub Divisional Magistrate has passed a conditional order under Section 133 Cr.P.C. They have further contended that the respondents had filed O.S. No. 255 of 2006 for a perpetual injunction against the writ W.P.(C) No. 3624/2010 : 2 : petitioner and others restraining them from cutting open a new pathway. The further case of the petitioner is that the Government had issued a notice dated 28.07.2006 calling upon the respondents to vacate from the puramboke land. It is at that juncture that the respondents have filed the present suit O.S. No. 261 of 2006 against the Government. The respondents very well know that the petitioner and others are interested in evicting the respondents from the puramboke land in question and therefore they are necessary parties to the present suit and that is why they filed I.A. No. 237 of 2010 seeking their impleadment as additional defendants 3 to 7. 3. This Court had called for a report from the Munsiff Court, Kayamkulam. The learned Munsiff in his letter dated 05.02.2010 has stated that the suit stands posted for trial on 09.02.2010 and while so, on 27.01.2010 I.A. No. 237 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner and four others seeking their impleadment as additional defendants and since there W.P.(C) No. 3624/2010 : 3 : was no application to advance the hearing of I.A No. 237 of 2010 to an early date, the said application has not been taken up for consideration on merits. 4. The learned Munsiff cannot be faulted in not taking I.A. No. 237 of 2010 on an early date particularly when the suit itself stands posted for trial. The only course open to this Court is to direct the Musiff to pass orders on I.A. No. 237 of 2010 and then take up the suit for trial. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the learned Munsiff to pass orders on I.A. No. 237 of 2010 expeditiously after giving both sides an opportunity of being heard and then take up the suit O.S. No. 261 of 2006 for trial. This order shall not be understood as directing the Munsiff to pass an order either allowing the application or dismissing the application. It is for the Munsiff to decide the I.A in accordance with law. Dated this the 9th day of February, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. W.P.(C) No. 3624/2010 : 4 : rv