IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2009 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 6561 of 2009(O) ---------------------------------- OS.284/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONER : ---------------- MUHAMMED ISMAIL, ALAYANKADAVATH HOUSE, P.O.PARAVANNA, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.S.SREEDEV RESPONDENTS : ------------------- 1. YUSUF, S/O.MARAKKAR, CHERUVALAPPIL HOUSE, P.O.PARAVANNA, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. RAJAN, S/O.THEYYAN, PACHATTIRI AMSOM PARAVANNA DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.6561 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.284/2005, Munsiff's court, Tirur. The suit is for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing upon the plaint schedule building or obstructing the plaintiff from possessing and enjoying the building. According to the plaintiff, he is a tenant of the building. The respondents/defendants contended that they are possessing as tenants and that the petitioner is not in occupation of the premises. 2. The suit was listed for trial. At that time, I.A.No.588/2009 was filed by the petitioner to permit him to file a witness list. The witness sought to be examined is the land lord of the building. That application was filed on 19.02.2009. On the same day, the petitioner filed I.A.No.590/2009 to summon the documents kept by Tirur Municipality for the period from 2001 to 2005 relating to the “annual list of places used for purposes for which licence is W.P.(C) No.6561 of 2009 2 required”. There is also a prayer in the application to produce the file relating to the endorsement in the register that the trade was stopped. This application was filed after cross examination of the petitioner/plaintiff who was examined as PW1. On 26.02.2009, the petitioner filed I.A.No.634/2009 for amendment of the plaint to introduce a prayer for declaration as alternative prayer and also to incorporate a prayer for mandatory injunction. In the affidavit in support of the application for amendment, it is stated in paragraph 3 that the defendant trespassed upon the property and reduced the same into his possession on the date on which the suit was filed. It is not clear from the averments in the Writ Petition as to whether the respondents have filed any counter to these interlocutory applications. It is stated in the Writ Petition that the court below passed an order in these applications stating that the applications are highly belated and consideration of the same will be kept in abeyance till 27.02.2009. It is stated that even thereafter no orders have been passed by the court. The Writ Petition was filed on 27.02.2009. An interim order was passed on that date staying the disposal of the suit, however after W.P.(C) No.6561 of 2009 3 observing that the trial may go on. 3. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioner are the following :- (A) Call for the records leading to Ext.P1 to P3 ; (B) Set aside the orders dated 26.02.2009 in I.A.Nos.588/09, 590/09 and 634/09 in O.S.284/05 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Tirur, and direct the Learned Munsiff to allow or at least dispose of such applications before the evidence of the plaintiff is over ; (C) Render such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 4. Though service of notice is complete, the respondents have not entered appearance. On the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I take it that I.A.Nos.588/2009, 590/2009 and 634/2009 have not been disposed of by the court below. I think it is necessary to issue a direction to the court to dispose of these applications. Therefore, there will be a direction to the Munsiff's court, Tirur to dispose of I.A.Nos.588/2009, 590/2009 and 634/2009 expeditiously and before the closure of the evidence. If the W.P.(C) No.6561 of 2009 4 evidence is already closed and if the court finds that the applications were not already disposed of, appropriate orders can be passed to re-open the evidence, if necessary. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the applications. The Writ Petition is disposed of. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE pac