IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2011 / 15TH ASHADHA 1933 CRP.No. 311 of 2011() --------------------- I.A.NO.101/2011 IN OS.260/2008 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT-II,KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): DEFENDANTS ------------------------------- 1. A.RAJAN,S/O.IMBICHIKKUTTY,RESIDING AT VARAYIL HOUSE,AZHCHAVATTOM,VALAYANAD AMSOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK,KOZHIKODE. 2. A.SAMIKUTTY,S/O.IMBICHIKUTTY, ARAMBACHALIL HOUSE,VELLAIKODE,KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH SMT.RESMI NANDANAN RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF ------------------------ T.K.KUMARI KAMALAN,D/O.P.V.SAMI, RESIDING AT KALPAKA,KASABA AMSOM,KOZHIKODE TALUK, P.O.CHALAPPURAM,CALICUT-673002. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.311 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July, 2011. ORDER Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated March 9, 2011 on I.A.No.101 of 2011 in O.S.No.260 of 2008 of the court of learned Principal Munsiff-II, Kozhikode. That is a suit filed by the respondent for a declaration that purchase certificate obtained by petitioners is vitiated by fraud and in suppression of material fact that in the ceiling case of the landlord the Taluk Land Board (for short, “the TLB”) had held that the document of lease on which respondent relied is void. Petitioners challenged maintainability of the suit and filed I.A.No.101 of 2011 to decide that issue. Learned Principal Munsiff found that the suit is maintainable. 2. It is contended by learned counsel that the very substratum of the suit is non-existent and that respondent has come with false and vexatious allegations in the plaint. It is submitted that the decision of TLB which is relied by the respondent to show that petitioners obtained purchase certificate by fraud and suppression of material fact was set aside by this Court, the matter was remitted to the TLB for a fresh decision and the matter was decided in favour of the declarant. It is also submitted that the Land Reforms Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Land Tribunal dismissing the application for issue of purchase certificate. Further contention CRP No.311/2011 2 urged by learned counsel is that respondent had filed application before the Land Tribunal for correction of extent of land in respect of which the purchase certificate was to be issued. It is also pointed out that respondent had filed O.S.No.33 of 2007 for a decree for prohibitory injunction, against petitioners and the trial court granted an order of temporary injunction. That order was confirmed by the appellate court in C.M.A.No.25 of 2007 but this Court in W.P. (C) No.14894 of 2008 interfered with the finding entered by the courts below and dismissed the application for injunction. Later the suit itself was dismissed as not pressed. 3. In fairness it is submitted by learned counsel that in O.S.No.33 of 2007 there was no allegation that the purchase certificate was obtained by fraud and suppression of material fact. Here the allegation in the plaint concerns the alleged fraud and suppression of material fact in petitioners obtaining the purchase certificate. The question whether those allegations are correct or not is not a matter to be decided either under Order VII Rue 11 or under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”). It has been held by this Court in Manickan and another v. Kanakam and another (1990 (2) KLJ 702) that when a purchase certificate is challenged on the ground of fraud it is within the jurisdiction of the civil court to consider that question. If that be so, the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Whether the respondent is entitled to the reliefs prayed for is a matter which the CRP No.311/2011 3 trial court has to decide. There is no scope for premature termination of the suit. I make it clear that it is open to the petitioners to raise all their contentions in the trial court. 4. Learned counsel has requested for an early disposal of the suit. Having regard to the circumstances stated by learned counsel and since the suit is of the year 2008 I am inclined to think the trial and disposal of the suit are to be expedited. Hence the learned Principal Munsiff-II, Kozhikode is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. With the above direction, this Civil Revision Petition is closed. I.A.No.1527 of 2011 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks