IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 22310 OF 2010(O) ----------------------------------------- OS.163/2008 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SINDHU RANI, AGED 36, W/O.SAHADEVAN, 'REERAGAM' KUMRAMKARIKOOM MURI,THINKALKARIKKOM VILLAGE PATHANAMPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY SMT.PRIYA R.KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ SUNIL KUMAR, AGED 38 THALAYILAZIHKATHU VEEDU, ATTINUKIZHAKKEKARA, KULATHUPUZHA MIR, KULATHUPUZHA VILLAGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.22310 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 16th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T This Writ Petition is filed by defendant in O.S.No.163 of 2008 of the court of learned Munsiff, Punalur challenging Exts.P2 and P3 orders. Respondent claiming to be owner in possession of suit property sought a decree for injunction against petitioner trespassing into the said property and committing waste. Petitioner has a case that suit property actually does not belong to the respondent, she is staying in the property and suit is filed in collusion with her husband with whom she is having some proceedings before the Family Court. Petitioner filed Ext.P1, application (I.A. No.994 of 2009) to implead her husband as additional defendant in the suit. Learned Munsiff passed Ext.P2, order on that application directing that application will be considered along with the suit as evidence is required to be taken. Yet another application filed by petitioner is I.A. No.993 of 2009 seeking interim order of injunction against respondent trespassing into the suit property. On that application learned Munsiff passed Ext.P3, order directing that the said application W.P(C) No.22310 of 2010 -: 2 :- also will be considered along with the suit. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that Exts.P2 and P3 orders are bad in law. He also stated about circumstances in which respondent filed the suit against petitioner colluding with husband of petitioner. Learned counsel further stated that petitioner is still residing in the suit property and hence entitled to get relief as prayed for in I.A. No.993 of 2009. 2. So far as request for impleadment vide Ext.P1, application is concerned I must bear in mind that respondent- plaintiff is the master of the suit and he is not claiming any relief against husband of the petitioner. Learned Munsiff observed that evidence is required in the matter and posted that application along with the suit. I do not find anything illegal in that finding requiring interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. So far as Ext.P3 is concerned grievance of petitioner is that in spite of she being in possession of the suit property and requesting for interim injunction against respondent trespassing into that property that application has not been considered and instead it is posted along with the suit. I make it clear that it will be open to petitioner to seek review of Ext.P3, order and request W.P(C) No.22310 of 2010 -: 3 :- learned Munsiff to consider that application before the suit is disposed of. I also make it clear that if petitioner has a contention in her written statement that the suit is result of collusion between her husband and respondent it is open to her to adduce evidence in that line. Writ Petition is closed with the above observation. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv