IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 18TH MAGHA 1932 OP(C).No. 537 of 2011(O) ------------------------ OS.137/2007 of MUNI-MAGI.COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: --------------- SUJA MATHEW, W/O.MATHEW, MARAMKANDATHIL HOUSE, UDUMBANOOR VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. BABY, S/O.KURIAKOSE, MARAMKANDATHIL HOUSE, CHITTILAMCHERRY KARA, CHITTILAMCHERRY VILLAGE, PALGHAT. 2. ANOOP,S/O.SASI, NADAKKANAL HOUSE, IDAMARAKU KARA, UDUMBANOOR VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA. 3. MURUGAN, S/O.PADMANABHAN, KARIATHOTTATHIL HOUSE, PALLIKKAMURI KARA, KARUMANOOR VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA. 4. LUKOSE, S/O.AUGUSTINE, POOVAMTHURUTHIL HOUSE, UDUMPANOOR KARA, UDUMPANOOR VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA. 5. SABU, S/O.AUGUSTINE, RESIDING DO. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ O.P.(C).No.537 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 7th day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T The prayer in the original petition is to quash Ext.P5 & P6 orders. Ext.P5 is the order passed by the learned Munsiff dismissing the petition for removing the case from the list. The very same petitioner filed I.A.No.139 of 2011 for impleading a third person as additional 6th defendant. Learned Munsiff held that impleadment of prior owner of the property as additional 6th defendant is not necessary. Since the suit is filed for injunction simplicitor the court also observed that impleadment of a third party as additional 6th defendant is not necessary also for the reason that the petitioner is not seeking any relief against the proposed defendant. In such circumstances Ext.P6 order passed by the court repelling the contentions of the petitioner is justified. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the connected suit is pending before the same court. Ext.P3 is the plaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that both cases have to be tried jointly in the interest of justice and that if ::2:: O.P.(C).No.537 Of 2011 joint trial is not conducted that may result in conflicting decisions. The petitioner is at liberty to move the trial court for appropriate orders. In that event, the trial court shall consider the petition for joint trial on merits and shall dispose of the same in accordance with law. The trial of O.S.No.135 of 2007 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of six weeks. The writ petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-