IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31491 of 2009(O) -- -------------------------------- OS.109/2009 of PRL.M.C., KOCHI ......................................................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- AMBROSE @ LALAN A..J ARACKAL HOUSE, NEDUNGAD ROAD NAYARAMBALAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. AMBROSE A.J,ALAPPATT HOUSE NAYARAMBALAM VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT KIZHAKKUMPURATH VEEDU, KOODARANJI PO, KOZHIKODE. 2. PAUL AMSTRONG, THACHERIL HOUSE THOTTAKKATTUKARA PO, ALUVA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31491 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of November 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is the first defendant in O.S No.109 of 2009 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kochi. Suit is for injunction, both prohibitory and mandatory, and it was instituted by the first respondent. After the case came up in the list for trial, an additional party was impleaded as the second plaintiff who claimed to be the transferee of the plaint property pending the suit. Impleadment of the second respondent though objected to by the defendants including the petitioner was allowed by the learned Munsiff. Pursuant thereto, an application was moved by the plaintiffs to carry out consequential amendments in the plaint arising on the impleadment of an additional party as second plaintiff. That was also opposed to by the defendants. Objections so W.P.(C).No.31491 OF 2009 Page numbers raised by the defendants were negatived by the learned Munsiff vide Ext.P6 order. Challenge in the writ petition is against the propriety and correctness of Ext.P6 order. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner/first defendant submitted, the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff is already over. First plaintiff who instituted the suit has already been examined in the case. In addition one more witness was examined on behalf of the plaintiff. So much so, impleadment of the second plaintiff who is a pendente lite purchaser of the property should not lead to extending of any opportunity to the plaintiffs to prolong and protract the trial of the case, is the submission of the counsel. Consequential amendment sought for after impleadment of an additional party as second plaintiff, according to the counsel, relate to the impleadment permitted, so, no further evidence from the plaintiffs in the nature of the relief claimed W.P.(C).No.31491 OF 2009 Page numbers in the suit is called for. In examining the propriety of Ext.P6 order at this stage, it is not proper for this court to express any opinion on the merit of the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is open to the petitioner to raise whatever challenges he has against the letting of any further evidence at the instance of the additional second plaintiff who has been impleaded after the case has been included in the special list as a transferee during the pendency of the suit. If any such objection is raised, the learned Munsiff is expected to consider the merit of that objection in accordance with law. I do not find any impropriety in Ext.P6 order passed by the learned Munsiff and it does not warrant any interference by exercise of the visitorial jurisdiction vested with this court. Subject to the observations made above, the writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE vdv