IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1933 OP(C).No. 3712 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------- OS.NO.97/2011 of MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... PETITIONERS ----------------------- 1. G.V.GIREESHKUMAR, S/O.GANAPATHI, 2. P.RAJESH, S/O.NARAYANAN, 3. K.SATHEESHAN, S/O.KUMARAN, 4. P.GIREESHAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, 5. V.GANGADHARAN, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, ALL ARE RESIDING AT PAYYANNUR AMSOM, THAYINERI DESOM, P.O.PAYYANNUR-670 307. BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THALIYIL SUKUMARAN, KALLYANI AMMA, 2. KALLACHI THANKAMANI, W/O.THALIYIL SUKUMARAN, 3. SREE THULUVANNOOR MAHAVISHNU TEMPLE, THAYINERI, PAYYANUR,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PRABHAKARAN T.V. 4. SIVADASAN E.P., PRESIDENT REPRESENTING SREE THULUVANNOOR MAHAVISHNU TEMPLE, ALL ARE RESIDING AT PAYYANNUR AMSOM, THAYINERI DESOM, P.O.PAYYNUR-670 307. BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts OP(C)NO.3712/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 19/10/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN I.A.1725/2011. P2 COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 20/06/2011 IN O.S.NO.97/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR. P3 COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED IN SUPPORT OF I.A.NO.1801/2011. P4 COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 5/11/2011 FILED IN SUPPORT OF I.A.NO.1821/2011 BY THE PLAINTIFFS. RESPONDENT' EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.3712 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT Petitioners sought their impleadment as additional defendants in O.S.No.97 of 2011 of the court of learned Munsiff, Payyannur. That is a suit filed by respondents 1 and 2 against respondents 3 and 4 for a declaration of right of easement by prescription over plaint B schedule way and consequential reliefs. According to the petitioners, the way claimed is through the temple property and they being devotees of the temple are interested in protecting the interest of temple. Hence Ext.P1, application for impleadment. Grievance of petitioners is that though several proceedings in the suit are going on and the learned Munsiff is passing orders as well, respondents 1 and 2 have not so far filed objection to Ext.P1, application and that puts petitioners to difficulty. According to the learned counsel, respondents 3 and 4 are not competent to represent the temple since they are only the President and Secretary of a committee formed for renovation of the temple. 2. Having regard to the circumstances I am inclined to think that if Ext.P1, application has not been disposed of, it has to be disposed of at the earliest. OP(C)No.3712/2011 2 Resultantly, this Original Petition is disposed of directing the learned Munsiff, Payyannur to dispose of Ext.P1, application (I.A.No.1725 of 2011) in O.S.No.97 of 2011 as early as possible. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks