IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11063 of 2010(O) -------------------------- OS.27/2010 of MUNSIFF COURT, RANNI .................... PETITIONER/PROPOSED ADDL DEFENDANT: ----------------------------------------------------------- VALSAMMA, AGED 44 YEARS,W/O.SAMKUTTY, MOOZHICKAL HOUSE,SEETHATHODE P.O., CHITTAR SEETHATHODE VILLAGE & RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------- 1. PHILIP @ BABY KUTTY, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.PHILIP, NEDUMPATHALIL HOUSE, CHITTAR SEETHATHODE VILLAGE & RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. 2. MATHEW SAMUEL, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.SAMUEL, MOOZHICKAL HOUSE, CHITTAR,SEETHATHODE VILLAGE & RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. 3. PHILIPOSE SAMUEL, S/O.SAMUEL, MOOZHICAL HOUSE, CHITTAR,SEETHATHODE VILLAGE & RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. 4. JOSE,S/O.GEORGE, THEYIYNAKL HOUSE, CHITTAR,SEETHATHODE VILLAGE & RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.11063 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 30th March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Limited prayer in this writ petition for a direction to the Munsiffs Court, Ranni to take up Ext.P4 impleading petition and dispose the same on merits before the implementation of Ext.P3 order. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No.19/2010 before the Munsiffs Court, Ranni. An ex parte order was passed against the 1st respondent in the suit. Copy of the order is produced as Ext.P1. 3. First respondent had filed the suit O.S No.27 of 2010. The suit was for part of the property owned by the petitioner. True copy of the plaint in O.S No27/2010 is produced as Ext.P2. In Ext.P2 neither the petitioner nor the husband of the petitioner is made a party. But the subject matter of the suit is the property covered in Ext.P1. 4. Learned Munsiff had passed an order of mandatory injunction. Copy of the order is produced as Ext.P3. Petitioner is not a party to Ext.P3 proceedings. Therefore, petitioner filed I.A 495/2010 in O.S 27/2010 to get them impleaded in the suit. Copy of the said petition is W.P (C) No.11063 of 2010 2 marked as Ext.P4. The complaint of the petitioner is that the interlocutory application for impleading in the said suit has been posted to June; whereas Ext.P3 order has to be complied within 29.3.2010. 5. The petitioner would say that if implementation of Ext.P3 is granted before impleading petition is heard, it is pointed out that irreparable loss and injury will be caused to them. Therefore, it is prayed that a direction may be issued to take up Ext.P4 before implementing Ext.P3 order. 6. In the light of the order that is proposed to be passed notice to the respondent is unnecessary. 7. Considering the averments, the prayer made by the petitioner seems to be just and reasonable. In the result, there will be a direction to the Munsiffs Court, Ranni to take up Ext.P4 and dispose the same on merits before the implementation of Ext.P3. Till then Ext.P3 shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE ma W.P (C) No.11063 of 2010 3 W.P (C) No.11063 of 2010 4 W.P (C) No.11063 of 2010 5