IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 31ST BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27096 of 2010(O) -------------------------- IA NO.375/2010 IN OS.367/2008 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,KOCHI .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOBY JOCOB PULICKEKUDY, S/O.FR.P.C.JACOB AGED 41 YEARS, PULICKEKUDYIL HOUSE, ELAMAKKARA, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE,ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL GEORGE SRI.SUMEESH K.S. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- BABU, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, THAIKKUTTATHIL, KUMBALANGI VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK. ADV. SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR SRI.P.H.SHAJI (THRIKKAKARA) SRI.TITTO THOMAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.27096/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 367/2008 EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXT.P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE IA NO.574/2008 EXT.P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE IA NO.375/2010 EXT.P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXT.P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.7.2010 //TRUE COPY// THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.27096 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2010. JUDGMENT Defendant in O.S.No.367 of 2008 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff, Kochi is the petitioner before me challenging Ext.P6, order dated July 24, 2010 on I.A.No.375 of 2010 in O.S.No.367 of 2008. That is a suit filed by the respondent for a decree for prohibitory injunction alleging that petitioner is attempting to trespass into the suit property which belonged to the respondent. Respondent alleged that petitioner destroyed the boundary on the east, west and north of plaint B schedule, is trying to trespass into plaint A schedule and use plaint A schedule for his access. There is also an allegation that petitioner attempted to commit waste in the suit property. Respondent prayed for a decree for prohibitory injunction against petitioner trespassing into plaint A schedule, committing waste or using the said property as a way. There is also a prayer for mandatory injunction in relation to plaint B schedule. Petitioner filed written statement contending that he has nothing to do with the properties and that plaint B schedule was purchased by his brother. Petitioner filed Ext.P3, application to delete him from the array of parties under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. That application was allowed by the learned Munsiff. That was followed by respondent filing Ext.P4, application for review of the order on Ext.P3, application. Learned Munsiff vide Ext.P6, order allowed Ext.P4, application and reviewed the order on Ext.P3, application filed by the WP(C) No.27096/2010 2 petitioner. That order is under challenge in this petition. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that since petitioner has nothing to do with the properties involved he is an unnecessary party to the suit and it was within the power of court to delete him from the array of parties. It is contended that consequent to Ext.P6, order Ext.P3, application has been closed by the learned Munsiff without passing any order on merit. 2. I have heard learned counsel for respondent also. So far as correctness of Ext.P6, order on Ext.P4, application (I.A.No.375 of 2010) is concerned, it is seen that learned Munsiff has observed that while Ext.P3, application was allowed the contention raised by the parties were not considered and no reason also was stated for allowing that application. Learned Munsiff has observed that it appeared that respondent/plaintiff has serious objection to Ext.P3, application which was not considered by the court while allowing Ext.P3, application and in the circumstances review of the order on Ext.P3, application is necessary. It is accordingly that Ext.P6, order allowing review of order on Ext.P3, application was passed. Learned Munsiff has observed, “................ Hence petition is allowed and the order on I.A.574/09 dated 5.12.09 is reviewed and set aside. ...........” WP(C) No.27096/2010 3 3. Having gone through Ext.P4, application and Ext.P6, order under challenge and hearing learned counsel on both sides I find no reason to interfere with the order under challenge. If consequent to Ext.P6, order learned Munsiff has disposed of Ext.P3, application on merit against petitioner, obviously he has to challenge that order in appropriate proceeding. If, on the other hand Ext.P3, application has merely been closed without hearing the parties it is open to the petitioner to seek review of the order as provided under law in the court below. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks