IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 25TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 26083 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.1607/09 IN OS.210/2007 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- LAJI,S/O.SREEDHARAN, AGED 47 YEARS, VARMA HOUSE, KOPPAM, VITHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR SRI.S.JIJI SRI.N.M.JAMES RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SHANADH M.RAHIM,DILSHAD MANZIL, VADAKKUMBHAGAM, KAZHAKKUTTOM. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. D.M.KUNJU,BEENA NURSERY, MARKET JUNCTION,VITHURA. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. MURZA RAHIM, DILSHAD MANZIL, KAZHAKKUTTOM. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.26083 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following relief: i. to call for records leading to issuance of Ext.P4 from Addl. Munsiff Court, Nedumangad and set aside the same and allow Ext.P3 petition. 2. Petitioner is the 3rd plaintiff in O.S.No.210 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Munsiff Court, Nedumangad. Suit is one for perpetual prohibitory injunction, and the respondents are the co-plaintiffs and defendants in the suit. The defendants, in their written statement, contended that the plaintiffs are the legal representatives of the judgment debtors in a previous suit filed by them as O.S.No.885 of 1960, and the suit property was delivered over to them pursuant to the WPC.26083/09 2 decree passed in that suit. To substantiate that claim, they produced some documents. One among the documents produced was issued from the Taluk Office showing the survey number. Disputing the genuineness of that document, the plaintiffs applied for production of the original register from the Taluk Office to send it over to the forensic expert for his opinion. That application was dismissed by the learned Munsiff vide Ext.P4 order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary, and hence, it is dispensed with. Perusing Ext.P4 order, I find no impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the learned Munsiff. Suit being one for perpetual prohibitory injunction, the plaintiffs have to establish their legal right over the property to sustain the WPC.26083/09 3 relief claimed for. Any enquiry with reference to the document produced by the defendants may not have any merit or value in determining the legal right of the plaintiffs to claim the relief sought for. Writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp