IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2011 / 29TH ASHADHA 1933 OP(C).No. 2335 of 2011(O) ------------------------- OS.569/2006 of ADDL.SUB COURT,NORTH PARAVUR .................... PETITIONERS: ------------------------ 1. SULAIMAN KARADAN, S/O. LATE MUHAMMED KARADAN, KARADAN HOUSE, EDAKKARA.P.O., NILAMBOOR AMSOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SALIM T.H., S/O. LATE HYDROSE, THEMBADATH HOUSE, TASS ROAD, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. A.V. THOMAS, S/O. VARGHESE, RUBY VILLA, ARAMBAD, MITHAPOOR, GUJARAT STATE REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER- K.P.VARGHESE, S/O. LATE PAILY, KANNOTH HOUSE, UDYOGAMANDAL.P.O., ELOOR SOUTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. SMT.P.A.SHEEJA, SRI.SAJU.S.A. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. FLORIA JOSE KOTTURAN, D/O. JULIAN.J.DAVID, B7, GCDA, HIG, GANDHINAGAR, KOCHI-20.(WRONGLY STATED AS RESIDING AT PAREKKAT BUNGLAW, ALUVA KARA, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, IN O.S. 569/2006). 2. PAULY.K.AYYAMPILLY, S/O.LATE A.P.KURIAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, PEN BOOKS(PVT) LTD., AYYAMPILLY HOUSE, VELIYATHUNAD, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 101. Kss ..2/- ..2.... OPC.NO.2335/2011 O 3. THOMAS.J.DAVID @ TOMY, S/O. JOSEPH.J.DAVID, PARAKKATT BUNGALOW, ALUVA KARA, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, PIN-683 101. 4. JOSEPH.J.DAVID, S/O.JULIAN.J.DAVID, PARAKKATT BUNGALOW, ALUVA KARA, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, PIN-683 101. 5. ANNINE JOSEPH, W/O. JOSEPH.J.DAVID, PARAKKATT BUNGALOW, ALUVA KARA, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, PIN-683 101. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss OPC.NO.2335/2011 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.569/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVOOR. P2: COPY OF THE DELIVERY REPORT DTD. 09/11/1966 IN O.S.NO.20/1958 OF THE ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVOOR. P3: COPY OF THE E.P.NO.217/1960 OF THE SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVOOR. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 18/12/2006 IN O.S.NO.569/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVOOR AND TYPED COPY. P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 11/12/2008 IN COMMISSION APPLICATION IN O.S.NO.569/2006. P6: COPY OF THE ORDERS DTD. 15/11/2006 IN I.A.NO.2374/06 AND I.A.NO.2040/06 IN O.S.NO.362/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT AT ALUVA. P7: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.362/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, ALUVA. P8: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.362/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, ALUVA. P9: COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.221/96 AND O.S.NO.465/96 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVOOR DTD. 12/03/1999. P10: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.22931/2006 AND WPC.NO.22172/2006 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT, DTD. 6/10/2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.2335 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of July, 2011. JUDGMENT Ext.P4, order dated 18.12.2006 passed by learned Additional Sub Judge, North Paravur in O.S.No.569 of 2006 is under challenge by petitioners – additional defendants 6 and 7. That is a suit filed by first respondent claiming that the delivery report dated November 9, 1966 in O.S.No.20 of 1958 of the District Court, North Paravur is fabricated. According to the petitioners/defendants the , suit is filed after 40 years in a court having no jurisdiction. Petitioners 1 and 2 claim to have purchased the suit property from second respondent and got themselves impleaded as additional defendants 6 and 7, in O.S.No.569 2006 on November 3, 2008. The challenge is to Ext.P4, order dated December 18, 2006. Learned Senior Advocate contends that though the Chief Ministerial Officer of the court below had pointed several defects for the plaint such as limitation, admissibility of the suit, whether the suit is properly valued, etc. learned Munsiff on December 18, 2006 has passed the impugned order that it is submitted that the market value shown in the document is `30,000/- and hence ordered to register the suit. Accordingly, the suit is registered and numbered as O.S.No.569 of 2006 and summons issued to defendants. OP(C) No.2335/2011 2 2. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation and at any rate the contention regarding validity of the delivery report ought to have been raised in O.S.No.20 of 1958, on the execution side and for the said reason, a separate suit is barred under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. But it is seen that the impugned order is dated December 18, 2006 and even assuming that petitioners were impleaded in the suit only on November 3, 2008, still the present petition is filed only after about 2 ½ years, in the meantime, there being so many proceedings in the suit with petitioners on the party array. 4. In view of the delay, I am not inclined to entertain this Original Petition. Petitioners can urge their contention before the trial court as provided under law. Original Petition is disposed of with the above observation. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks