IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 1ST ASWINA 1932 OP(C).NO. 12 OF 2010(O) ----------------------- IA.1826/2010 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM PETITIONER ------------------ 1. SHAHIDA BEEVI, AGED 45 YEARS, D/O.JAMEELA BEEVI, KATTIL VEEDU, S.V.PURAM, CHEMMARUTHI VILLAGE, VARKALA. 2. NADHEERA BEEVI, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.JAMEELA BEEVI, BISMILLA MANZIL, KAVALPURAM, ERAVIPURAM, KOLLAM. 3. MAJIDHA BEEVI, AGED 34 YEARS, D/O.JAMEELA BEEVI, BLUE SKY NIVAS, VADUTHALA, PADMANA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.SATISH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SALEEM, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAZACK, INJACKAL VEEDU, VADAKKEVILA P.O., VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2. SHOBITHA, D/O.AHAMMEDKUNJU, FIRDOSE HOUSE, VADAKKEVILA P.O., KAYYALAKKAL CHERRY, ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.12 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Plaintiffs in a suit where the plaint was neither returned nor numbered are the petitioners before me. Exhibit P1 is the copy of plaint filed on 05.06.2010. Attempt of petitioners was to set aside Exts.P4 and P5, sale deed and settlement deed, respectively and for recovery of possession of the property. Petitioners filed Ext.P2, application to condone the delay of 431 days in filing the suit. That application was dismissed by the learned Munsiff vide Exdt.P3, order but no order has been passed on Ext.P1, plaint either rejecting it as time barred for any reason or numbering it. Leaned counsel contends that there are sufficient averments in the plaint to show that petitioners got information about fraudulent execution of Exts.P4 and P5 only by 01.10.2009 and since the suit is filed on 05.06.2010 question of limitation does not arise in view of Article 59 of the Limitation Act. It is not necessary for me to go into the question whether on the plaint averments it is barred by limitation or not. That is a matter which the learned Sub Judge has to consider. O.P(C) No.12 of 2010 -: 2 :- Resultantly, Writ Petition is dismissed. However learned Sub Judge is directed to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P1, plaint as provided under law. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv