IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 13121 of 2008(K) -------------------------- OS.310/2001 of MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- SAROJINI, D/O.LATE NARAYANI, 'AISWARAYA', NEDUNGOLAM P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. SURESH BABU, DEVAMATHA HOUSE, NEDUNGOLAM P.O., PARAVUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2. LEELA, D/O.LEKSHMI, DEVAMATHA HOUSE, NEDUNGOLAM P.O., PARAVUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.13121/2008 K APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.578/04 IN O.S.NO.326 OF 2000 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVOOR DTD. 08/09/04. EXT.P2: COPY OF I.A.NO.778 OF 2007 IN O.S.310 OF 2001 DTD. 25/06/2007 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVOOR. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD. 04/08/2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN I.A.NO.778 OF 2007 IN O.S.310/2001. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 12/10/07 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVOOR IN I.A.NO. 778 OF 2007 IN O.S.310 OF 2001. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 04/01/2008 IN WP(C) NO.528 OF 2008 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PARAVUR IN O.S.NO.310 OF 2001. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.778/2007 IN O.S.NO.310/2001 DTD. 18/02/2008 OF THE MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE, PARAVUR. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== W.P.(C) NO.13121 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 11th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the second defendant in O.S.310/2001 on the file of Munsiff Court,Paravur. The suit is one for injunction. Petitioners in I.A.778/2007 sought to implead themselves as additional plaintiffs based on an assigment deed obtained from first plaintiff. Petition was opposed by defendants. Learned Munsiff originally allowed the application under Ext.P4 order which was challenged before this court by the petitioner in W.P(C) 529/2008. Under Ext.P5 judgment this court quashed that order and directed the Munsiff to pass fresh orders after hearing the parties and taking the objection raised by the petitioner as petition was not considered on merits. The Munsiff thereafter under Ext.P3 order allowed the application. It is challenged in this petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India. W.P.(C)13121/2008 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that in O.S.326/2000 Munsiff had passed an order in I.A.578/2004 (Ext.P1) whereunder the sole plaintiff in O.S.310/2001, respondent defendant and the additional second plaintiff who is sought to be impleaded, from alienating the property. The argument of the learned counsel is that in view of the alienation in violation of that order, Munsiff should not have impleaded them under Ext.P3 order. Learned counsel also argued that Munsiff did not consider the objection with regard to the maintainability of the application as consent of the original plaintiff was not obtained in writing and the petition was not filed in accordance with Rule 21(1) of Civil Rules of Practice. 4. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in Ext.P3 order warranting interference. The question whether additional plaintiffs who were impleaded under Ext.P3 order have a right to get the decree is a W.P.(C)13121/2008 3 matter to be decided by the learned Munsiff in the suit and not in this application. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that no final order is passed in I.A.1369/2001. According to petitioner, an order of temporary injunction was granted in 2001 and it was not confirmed or vacated thereafter. If that be the case, it is for the petitioner to file an application before the Munsiff to pass final orders in I.A.1369/2001. If the Munsiff cannot dispose the suit immediately, then learned Munsiff has to pass appropriate orders in I.A.1369/2001 in accordance with law. According to learned counsel appearing for petitioner, the issues in the suit are not framed. If that be the case, learned Munsiff has to frame the issues and dispose the suit as expeditiously as possible. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006