IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 8TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 11359 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.55/2007 of M.C.,PARAPPANANGADI .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. VISWANATHAN,S/O.KUNJIKUTTI AMMA, NODIYA PARAMBIL CHARAM THODI,TIRURANGADI TALUK, ARIYALLUR AMSOM DESOM,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.KUNJIKUTTI AMMA, NODIYA PARAMBIL CHARAM THODI,TIRURANGADI TALUK, ARIYALLUR AMSOM DESOM,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. MOHANDAS, S/O.KUNJIKUTTI AMMA, NODIYA PARAMBIL CHARAM THODI,TIRURANGADI TALUK, ARIYALLUR AMSOM DESOM,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.HARISH R. MENON, MR.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. BHASKARAN,S/O.SAVITHRI AMMA,NODIYA PARAMBIL,RIRURANGADI TALUK,ARIYALLUR AMSOM DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. KOZHIPARAMBATH USHADEVI,W/O.GANGADHARAN, NODIYA PARAMBIL,TIRURANGADI TALUK, ARIYALLUR AMSOM DESOM,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. KOZHIPARAMBATH JIJESH,S/O.GANGADHARAN, NODIYA PARAMBIL,TIRURANGADI TALUK, ARIYALLUR AMSOM DESOM,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. JISHA UDAYAN,W/O.UDAYASANKAR,NODIYA PARAMBIL,TIRURANGADI TALUK, ARIYALLUR AMSOM DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. MR.C.DILIP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/09/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.11359/2009 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF I.A.NO.1405/2008. P2: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN I.A.NO.1405/2008. P3: COPY OF I.A.NO.1405/2008 AND THE ORDER PASSED THEREON. P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 02/09/2008 IN WPC.NO.26534/2008. P5: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED IN SUPPORT OF I.A.NO.2360/2008. P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 20/02/2009 IN I.A.NO.2360/2008 IN O.S.NO.55/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.11359 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To set aside Exhibit P6 order passed in I.A.No.2360/2008 in O.S.No.55/2007 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Honourable Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ii) To pass an order dismissing I.A.No.1405/2008 in O.S.No.55/2007 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi.” 2. Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.55 of 2007 on the file o the Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi. Suit is one for perpetual prohibitory injunction and respondents are the defendants. Admittedly, respondents/defendants did not file written statement within the time granted by the court. However, later, they filed written statement with a petition for condoning delay. Ext.P1 is the copy of that application. Petitioners/plaintiffs filed objections, copy of which is Ext.P2. Learned Munsiff passed Ext.P3 order directing reception of the W.P.(C).No.11359 of 2009 - O 2 written statement belatedly filed imposing cost of Rs.1,000/- as payable to the plaintiffs. The reasons set out for condoning the delay for belated filing was not considered while ordering reception of the written statement was canvassed by the plaintiffs to file a writ petition as W.P.(C).No.26534 of 2008 before this Court to challenge the correctness of Ext.P3 order passed by the learned Munsiff. This Court after hearing the learned counsel on both sides found merit in the case canvassed by the petitioners/plaintiffs and Ext.P4 judgment was rendered disposing the writ petition with direction to the court below to consider the merit of Ext.P1 application in the light of Ext.P2 objections raised by the plaintiffs and pass fresh orders. Pursuant thereto, despite two postings of the case, as the directions in Ext.P4 judgment were not complied with, the plaintiffs moved another application inviting the attention of the court for reconsideration of Ext.P3 order. Ext.P5 is the copy of the application moved by the plaintiffs. Learned Munsiff disposed of Ext.P5 application vide Ext.P6 order adverting to and reiterating the grounds already stated in passing Ext.P3 order allowing Ext.P1 application. The W.P.(C).No.11359 of 2009 - O 3 present writ petition has been filed by the plaintiffs complaining of noncompliance of the learned Munsiff of the directions issued in Ext.P4 judgment imputing that the merit of Ext.P1 application has not been considered despite filing of Ext.P5 application and Ext.P6 order passed is therefore improper, illegal and unsustainable. 3. Notice being given, respondents have entered appearance. I heard the counsel on both sides. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances presented and also the submissions made by the counsel on both sides a report was called for from the District Judge, Manjeri, directing him to examine the records, after causing production, to verify whether Ext.P1 application had been considered by the learned Munsiff while passing Ext.P6 order complying with the direction given in Ext.P4 judgment. After due verification, learned District Judge reported that no order has been passed in Ext.P1 application while disposing Ext.P6 order. In the light of that report, a report from the learned Munsiff was sought for. Meanwhile the officer who passed Ext.P6 order had been W.P.(C).No.11359 of 2009 - O 4 transferred to another station. Though initially the present presiding officer reported that Ext.P1 application was considered and disposed of, subsequently, another report was sent stating that the previous report was incorrect and Ext.P1 application had not been disposed of. It is now reported by the counsel on both sides the court below has now heard Ext.P1 application and allowed it on terms directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as cost to the plaintiffs for condoning delay and accepting their written statement. Though the procedure followed by the court below in hearing and disposing of Ext.P1 application when Ext.P6 order is under challenge in the writ petition appears to be not proper, I find any further enquiry on those lapses will only delay the trial of the suit. The counsel on both sides have no objection in giving a quietus to the controversy over the delay in filing written statement in the light of the order now passed on Ext.P1 application, as indicated above. So much so, no further orders over Ext.P1 application are required in the present writ petition. However, Ext.P6 order passed by the officer concerned, despite rendering of Ext.P4 W.P.(C).No.11359 of 2009 - O 5 judgment by this Court with specific directions, and an application moved by the plaintiff inviting the attention of the court to that judgment and the directions thereon cannot be brushed aside as of no consequence. Despite specific directions given by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment, it is apparent, Ext.P1 application was not considered on its merits and that too after attention was invited to such directions by way of an application moved by the plaintiffs. In the circumstance, while closing this writ petition as further orders are found not necessary over Ext.P1 application and Ext.P6 orders, I direct the registry to invite the attention of the administrative Judge, holding charge of the District where the officer, who passed the order continue at present, of the lapses noticed in discharge of his judicial functions. Writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-