IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 24061 of 2009(O) -------------------------------------- OS.814/2007 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM. ................. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- BHARATHAN, AGED 80 YEARS, SON OF KRISHNAN, DEVA MANDIRAM, MUNDAKKAL EAST, ERAVIPURAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR.JOHNSON GOMEZ MR.G.KRISHNA KUMAR (MARANAD) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. H.M. SUBAIR, AGED 71 YEARS, SUCHITHRA BUNGALOW, BEACH NORTHWARD, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. TASHRIFF MOHAMMED SANIL, AGED 8 YEARS, (MINOR) SUCHITHARA BUNGLOW, BEACH NORTH WARD, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. A. DARAJAHAN, AGED 46 YEARS, DARSAM VEEDU, EDAVATTATHU CHERRY, PERINADU P.O., KOLLAM. 4. RAZIA SUBAIR, AGED 65 YEARS, WIFE OF SUBAIR, SUCHITHRA BUNGLOW, BEACH NORTHWARD, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DIST. 5. SHAMMA SHAHUL, AGED 41 YEARS, D/O. RAZIA SUBAIR, PAQT MANZIL IST FLOOR, TRA NO. 77, MANAKKAD, KAMALESWARAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. MOHAMMED SUBAIR, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. SUBAIR, P.B. NO. 3258, GENERAL CARGO, DUBAI UAE. 7. VINOD MOHAMMED SUBAIR, AGED 36 YEARS, SON OF SUBAIR, NAKEEL MARINE, OPERATIONS, P.B. NO. 3258, DUBAI UAE, 8. WAHIDA SANIL, AGED 36 YEARS, WIFE OF M.S. SANIL, NAKEEL P.J.S.C., P.B. NO. 17777, DUBAI, UAE. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.A.AHZAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 24061/2009-O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.814/2007 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ON 09/11/2007 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PETITION I.A. NO.3357/2009 FOR SETTING ASIDE EXPARTE ORDER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 07/08/2009. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE I.A. NO.3729/2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO REMOVE THE CASE FROM THE LIST. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE COMMISSION APPLICATION. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.24061 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following reliefs: i. to direct the Munsiff Court, Kollam to remove O.S.No.814/2007 from the list published for the month of August 2009, so as to enable the petitioner an opportunity to produce all necessary documents for substantiating his contentions raised in Ext.P2 written statement. ii. to direct the Munsiff Court, Kollam to issue certified copy of the order passed in Ext.P4 application in accordance with law expeditiously and within a time limit that this Honourable Court might consider reasonable. 2. Petitioner is the 1st defendant in O.S.No.814 of 2007 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kollam. Suit is for declaration WPC.24061/09 2 of title, injunction and mesne profits. Petitioner/1st defendant has filed a written statement resisting the suit claim. Writ petition was filed, when the suit was included in the special list for trial, seeking extension of time of one month for trail to enable the petitioner to produce necessary documents to substantiate his contentions in the written statement. 3. Notice given, the respondents have entered appearance through counsel. I heard the counsel on both sides. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed for consideration of a commission application purported to have been filed before the trial court, producing a copy of that application with a petition before this Court. Having regard to the limited relief canvassed in the writ petition, I find this Court need not express any opinion on the merits of the Commission application, if any, moved by the petitioner in the suit. Whether the petitioner/1st defendant is entitled to move a commission application, at this stage, is a matter to be considered by the trial court taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances WPC.24061/09 3 involved in the case. The time requested by the petitioner for production of the documents to substantiate his contentions by way of filing of the writ petition has already been enjoyed by him, and no further orders are required in the writ petition, and the writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp