IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 5953 of 2008(H) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: -------------------- NARENDRAN @ ANANDAN, S/O.T.BALAKRISHNA MENON, ANANDKALAN HOUSE, KANJIKODE WEST POST, PUTHUSSERY VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. A.GOPINATHAN, S/O.SETHUMADHAVAN NAIR, AMRUTHAKRIPA, KOLAYAKKODE, PUDUSSERY AMSOM AND DESOM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THANKAN @ LAKSHMY KUTTY, W/O.T.BALAKRISHNA MENON, D/O.MADHAVI AMMA, KOTTAPADAM, PERADIKKUNNU, NAGARIPURAM AMSOM DESOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 5953 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 20th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Palakkad, in IA 508/08 in OS 314/05. The said application is filed under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code to stay the trial of OS 466/94, which is in the list for trial. The question revolves upon the validity or correctness of a Will. The said Will is produced in LAR 14/95 and an appeal is pending against the award in the said case as LAA 326/01. 2. The contention of the writ petitioner could have been well appreciated and relief can be granted but, unfortunately the parties in OS 466/94 are not parties to the land acquisition proceedings and therefore any decision taken in that land acquisition proceeding may not be binding on the parties in OS 466/94. Therefore I find that the court below was justified in refusing to grant a stay under Section 10 of the CPC. The court also granted time for 10 days to produce the original of the document or certified copy, as the party desires, and refused to remove the suit from the list. WPC NO 5953/08 2 3. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner strongly contends before me that it may take some time to prefer an application and to substitute the original with a certified copy it may not be practicable to do it by 10 days, as ordered by the court below. There is considerable force in the said contention. Therefore, in order to do substantial justice to the parties, I direct the court below to remove OS 466/94 from the list and post all the three cases (i.e. OS Nos. 312, 314 and 466/94) for trial in the list during the last week of March, 2008. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC NO 5953/08 3 30444 This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Munsiff, Vykom, in IA 1786/07 in OS 377/06. It is an application for amendment of the plaint. It is averred in the application for amendment that just before the inspection of the property by the Commissioner, the defendants tried to trespass upon the plaint scheduled property and forcibly removed the boundary stones. Therefore the plaintiff wants to incorporate a prayer to fix the boundary on all the sides of the plaint scheduled property demarcating with the defendants property. This was strongly objected to by the defendants.