IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 FAO.No. 233 of 2009() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.4464/2008 IN OS.235/2008 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT-I, KOZHIKODE-I .................... APPELLANTS:RESPONDENTS:DEFENDANTS: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ANDI, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O.CHANGARAN, VALIYA PARAMBIL, NANMINDA AMSOM AND DESOM,KOZHIKODE. 2. LOHITHAKSHAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.ANDI, VALIYA PARAMBIL NANMINDA AMSOM AND DESOM,KOZHIKODE. 3. VINODKUMAR, AGED 32 YEARS S/O.ANDI, VALIYA PARAMBIL NANMINDA AMSOM AND DESOM,KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: PLAINTIFFS: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. METHARAMMAL KUNHAMMAD HAJI AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.MOOSSAKUTTY PUTHANPURAYIL, KADAMERI AMSOM AND DESOM,VATAKARA THALUK. 2. METHARAMMAL IBRAHIM HAJI AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.MOOSSAKUTTY PUTHANPURAYIL, KADAMERI AMSOM AND DESOM,VATAKARA THALUK. 3. METHARAMMAL ABDULLA HAJI AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.MOOSSAKUTTY PUTHANPURAYIL, KADAMERI AMSOM AND DESOM,VATAKARA THALUK. 4. METHARAMAL KUNHAYI AGED 55 YEARS,D/O.MOOSSAKUTTY PUTHANPURAYIL, KADAMERI AMSOM AND DESOM,VATAKARA THALUK. FAO.No. 233 of 2009 -2- 5. METHARAMAL PATHU AGED 50 YEARS,D/O.MOOSSAKUTTY PUTHANPURAYIL, KADAMERI AMSOM AND DESOM,VATAKARA THALUK. 6. KINARULLATHIL KUNHAMMED, 41 YEARS S/O.MOIDU HAJI, TIRUVALLOOR AMSOM AND DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK. 7. MUTHUVANA MUHAMMED, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.KUNHABDULLA, TIRUVALLOOR AMSOM AND DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK. 8. PANACHIKANDIYIL ABDUL SALAM, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.KUNHABDULLA, TIRUVALLOOR AMSOM AND DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK. (The Ist petitioner in the lower court Metherammal Mariyam is dead and hence not shown in the party array in this petition) ADV. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN FOR R6 TO 8 SMT.KALA G.NAMBIAR FOR R6 TO R8 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ F.A.O.No.233 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 15th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Appellants are the defendants. The suit is one of injunction. Pending suit I.A.No.4464/2008 was filed under Order 22 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC to implead the petitioner 7 to 9 in the petition as supplementary plaintiffs 7 to 9. The court below has passed the impugned order stating that “considering the reason mentioned in I.A. prayer in the application allowed.” 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 6 to 8. Even though service is not complete on respondents 1 to 5 in view of the facts of this case and in view of the order we propose to pass it may not be necessary to hear respondents 1 to 5. We reserve right to respondents 1 to 5 to seek a review in case they feel aggrieved by the order passed by us. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants would point out that having regard to Order 22 Rule 10 in the facts of the present case the court below has not applied its mind to the FAO 233/2009 -2- aspects. It is pointed out that the appellants/defendants challenged the very right of the plaintiffs 1 to 6 and under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC petitioners 7 to 9 in the I.A. claimed as alienees from plaintiffs 1 to 6. 4. We feel that we need not interfere with the order. But, we need only clarify that the fact that the interlocutory application is allowed shall not weigh with the court when the case is decided in regard to the question as to whether plaintiffs 1 to 6 had legal rights which they purported to possess and which is denied by the appellants. Subject to the above clarification the appeal is dismissed. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS