IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 994 of 2010(O) ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/01/2010 IN IA.47/2010 IN OS.83/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------- MOHAMMED ASLAM, S/O.ABOOBACKER, MADATHILAKATH, TIRUNAVAYA AMSOM, KARATHUR DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. BY ADV. MR.JAMSHEED HAFIZ RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. ABOOBACKER, S/O.CHERIYA KOYAKKUTTY MADATHILAKATH HOUSE, TIRUNAVAYA AMSOM, TIRUR TALUK. 2. THALIKAPARAMBIL SUBAIDA, D/O.KUNHEEN, TIRUNAVAYA AMSOM, KORUTHUR DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. 3. MADATHILAKATH MOHAMMED ASLAM, S/O.ABOOBACKER, TIRUNAVAYA AMSOM KORUTHUR DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. 4. SHAHANAS, W/O.MOHAMMED ASLAM, TIRUNAVAYA AMSOM, KORUTHUR DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. 5. THOPPASSERI ABDUL SAMAD, S/O.KUNHALI @ KUNJU, ERNAD TALUK, PULIKKAL AMSOM, VALIYAPARAMBATH DESOM. 6. HALEEMATH SAHADIYA, D/O.ABOOBACKER ERNAD TALUK, PULIKKAL AMSOM, VALIYAPARAMBATH DESOM. 7. PARAMBATH AYISHUMMA, D/O.KUNHEETHU HAJI, THEKKEN KUTTOOR AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. 8. PARAMBATH KUNJIMON, S/O.KUNHEETHU HAJI, S/O.KUNHEEN HAJI, THENKEEN KUTTOOR AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. 9. THALIKAPARAMBIL JABIR @ KUNHIMON, S/O.KUNHEEN, THEKKEN KUTTOOR AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.994 of 2010 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the third defendant in O.S.No.83 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Tirur. The above suit is filed by the first respondent for a decree for mandatory injunction and other reliefs. First defendant is stated to be the second wife of the first respondent/plaintiff and other defendants, the children of the second defendant and some of the children of the plaintiff in his first wife. Resisting the suit claim the defendants including the present petitioner have filed a written statement in which among other contentions they have challenged the maintainability of the suit as well advancing a case that only the Family Court has jurisdiction to resolve the disputes canvassed in the suit. Whatever that be, the case came up in the special list for trial on 7.1.2010. Petitioner/first defendant moved an application for adjourning the trial of the case stating that one of her daughters, 4th defendant, is now having advanced stage of pregnancy and she has been admitted in hospital. She also stated that one of W.P.(C).No.994 of 2010 - O 2 her daughters, who is not in the party array as having been bitten by a stray dog, is undergoing medical treatment. The learned Munsiff allowed a short adjournment subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- and the case was posted for payment of cost on 12.1.2010. Ext.P4 is the copy of that order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P4 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented with reference to the exhibits tendered in the petition, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary and it is dispensed with. 3. Learned Munsiff in Ext.P4 order has stated that petitioner while seeking adjournment of the trial setting forth causes as indicated earlier has not produced any evidence in support thereof. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the affidavit sworn to in support of Ext.P3 application moved for adjournment pointing out that the petitioner has W.P.(C).No.994 of 2010 - O 3 produced copies of the medical records as to the treatment of her daughter who was admitted in hospital. I find there is force in the submission made by the counsel that records had been produced to substantiate at least one of the causes pleaded for adjournment. Perusing the affidavit filed in support of Ext.P3 application and also the submission made by the learned counsel, I find that the court below was not justified in imposing a cost of Rs.1,000/- for adjourning the trial of the case. Further more it is also noticed that the defendants have challenged the maintainability of the suit as well in their written statement contending that only the Family Court has got exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the disputes involved in the suit. Having regard to the scope and ambit of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, I find that question of jurisdiction in view of the contention raised by the defendants required to be examined by the court before proceeding with the trial of the case. That also persuade me to interfere with the order passed by the learned Munsiff. Ext.P4 order is set aside and learned Munsiff is directed to examine the question of jurisdiction for entertaining the suit W.P.(C).No.994 of 2010 - O 4 raised by the defendants in accordance with law if that question has not been considered so far, and then to proceed with the trial subject to the orders passed thereof. Writ petition is disposed as indicated above. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-