IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1804 of 2008(M) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EA 120/07 INEP 17/2006 IN OS.199/1998 of MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTARAKKARA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ BABU, S/O DAMODARAN, PLANKALA VEEDU, CHERUMANGATTU MURI, PUTHOOR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. VASANTHA, D/O MEENAKSHY, PLANKALA VEEDU, CHERUMANGATTU MURI, PUTHOR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 3. THE TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. CHELLAPPAN, S/O RAMAN, PLAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KARIKKAL MURI, PUTHOOR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. SAHADEVAN, PUTHUPPALLY VEEDU, KARIKKAL MURI, PUTHOOR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. R.BINDU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 1804 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed seeking to set aside the order passed by the Munsiff, Kottarakkara, in E.A. 120/07 in E.P. 17/06 in O.S. 199/98. This application is filed by strangers to get themselves impleaded as judgment debtors 4 and 5. Serious objections have been raised by the decree holders, which I feel rightly as well that it requires real consideration by the court. A perusal of the records available would show that the present persons who have filed this application has filed separate suit, lost it and allowed that order to become final. When the present decree is to be put into execution, they want to come on the party array as additional judgment debtors to block the proceedings in the execution petition. The very question of maintainability of such a petition itself is in question But unfortunately the learned Munsiff had disposed of the matter with a one line order, which dos not reflect what he has done or why he has not considered the objection raised by the other side. Therefore the order under challenge is necessarily to be interfered with. WPC NO 1804/08 2 Therefore, I set aside the order and remit back the same to the court below for fresh consideration and disposal of the same in accordance with law, after hearing all concerned. Since I am allowing the writ petition at the admission stage itself, on receipt of a copy of the judgment, the court below shall give notice to the other parties, fix a date for hearing and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC NO 1804/08 3