IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21390 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 839/2005 IN OS.134/2005 of MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT,MANANTHAVADY .................... PETITIONER(S): PLAINTIFFS:PETITIONERS: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.SARADHA, W/O.KUTTAN NAMBIAR, AGED 52. 2. SOUMYA T.P., D/O.KUTTAN NAMBIAR, AGED 25. 3. T.P.SANAL, S/O.KUTTAN NAMBIAR, AGED 21, (MISTAKENLY SHOWN AS MINOR IN IMPUGNED ORDER). ALL RESIDING AT THOZHUKATTU PUTHEN VEEDU, ANCHUKUNNU AMSOM AND DESOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.SRINATH GIRISH, SMT.M.LISHA. RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANTS:RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. GOVINDAN NAMBIAR 2. K.MINU BOTH RESIDING AT A-WING, N.204, CHANDRA HEIGHTS, JASWAL PARK, BHIDER EAST, THANE, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.21390 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.134 of 2005 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Mananthavady. Suit is filed seeking a decree of declaration of title and possession on the basis of prescribing title by adverse possession, and also for other consequential reliefs. When the defendants, two in number appeared in the suit, the petitioners/plaintiffs raised a contention that they are not the real defendants but impersonators. On the application moved by the petitioners/plaintiffs the vakalath executed by the defendants with some other documents including a power of attorney was sent over to an examination. The expert, after W.P.(C).No.21390 OF 2009 Page numbers scrutiny of the documents sent a report to the court. Petitioners/plaintiffs filed objection to that report seeking a fresh enquiry by sending the documents to another expert. The defendants also appeared in person before the court and produced relevant documents including their voters identity card to prove their identity. The learned Munsiff after being satisfied that there was no impersonation of the defendants and the persons who appeared before the court are really the defendants of the suit, declined the requests of the petitioners/plaintiffs for a fresh scrutiny of the vakalath and other documents to a new forensic expert. Ext.P6 is the copy of that order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C).No.21390 OF 2009 Page numbers 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented with reference to Ext.P6 order, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary and hence it is dispensed with. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though in the writ petition challenging Ext.P6 order reliefs are claimed for sending the documents subjected to forensic examination once again by issuing appropriate orders / directions to the court below, he is confining his request only for a direction to the court below to examine the issues raised as regards the impersonisation of defendants afresh in the trial of the suit untrammeled by any of the observations made in Ext.P6 and Ext.P9 orders. I fail to understand in what way that will be advantageous to the petitioners / plaintiffs in the suit. The dispute whether the persons who appeared before the court are the real defendants has to be resolved as a preliminarily issue before proceeding W.P.(C).No.21390 OF 2009 Page numbers with further steps for the trial of the suit, and it has nothing to do with the adjudication of the suit claim or the issues arising for consideration in the suit. The court has come to a definite finding that the persons who appeared before the court are the defendants and the objections raised by the petitioners / plaintiffs to the contrary are baseless. It has also expressed, the opinion that the attempt of the petitioners in raising such objections is to prolong and protract the suit and that being so I find no direction can be given to the court to reexamine that question again. 3. The facts and circumstances presented in the case give strong credence to the opinion formed by the learned Munsiff that the petitions moved by the petitioners are intended to delay the adjudication of the disputes and a decision in the suit with finality. Statements made in the writ petition also show that several other petitions moved by the petitioners are also pending for W.P.(C).No.21390 OF 2009 Page numbers consideration before the court below. Needless to point out, if the petitions are found prima facie frivolous and intended to delay the trial of the suit, it shall be disposed by passing appropriate orders imposing heavy terms. Parties to a lis cannot stall the trial when litigants having genuine cause are clamouring for ventilating their grievances and the time of the court being so limited and precious it has to be profitably applied with the avowed object to dispense and advance justice. The court below in the given facts of the case is directed to expedite the trial of the suit, which is seen instituted nearly four years ago, and to see that it is disposed of at the earliest, at any rate, before 31st March, 2010. Subject to the above observations this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv