IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2010 / 9TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20238 of 2010(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08/04/2010 IN IA1646 /2010 IN OS.140/2008 of SUB COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------- K.P.ZUBAIDA, AGED 46 YEARS, D/O.KULANGARAPARAMBIL KUNJU MOIDEEN, OZHOOR, KARADU, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.M.MADHU SMT.C.DEVIKA RANI KAIMAL RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER: ADV. SRI. P N JAYAKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No.20238 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 30th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent. 2. Plaintiff in O.S.No.140 of 2008 of the court of learned sub Judge, Tirur is aggrieved by the order dated 08-04-2010 on I.A.No.1646 of 2010 granting leave to file additional written statement on behalf of the respondent. Petitioner filed the suit for a declaration of her right over the suit property. Respondent filed its written statement. In the course of suit petitioner wanted certain documents to be produced by the Taluk Land Board (for short, the “TLB”) and the State Land Board (for short, the “SLB”). That application was allowed and summons was issued to the said authorities to produce documents. The said authorities produced certain documents but according to the petitioner, it was incomplete in that what was produced was photocopy of certain documents. Again there was an application by the petitioner to compel the said authorities to produce original of the documents. While so, respondent filed I.A.No.1646 of 2010 seeking leave of the court to file additional written statement raising the contention that the TLB is a necessary party to the suit and without it on the party array suit is not maintainable. That application was opposed by petitioner on the ground that it is filed after about two years of W.P.C.No.20238 of 2010 : 2 : filing the original written statement and that attempt is to circumvent the order for production of original of documents. Learned Sub Judge passed the following order on the application on 08-04-2010. “Counter filed. Heard. Allowed” 3. Learned counsel contends that the order does not show that learned Sub Judge has applied mind on the question whether leave has to be granted on the application to file additional written statement and whether the TLB is a necessary party to the suit. It is also contended by learned counsel that no further action has been taken by the learned Sub Judge on the application of petitioner to direct the TLB and SLB to produce original of documents. 4. No doubt, learned Sub Judge has passed a non speaking order and, it required the learned Sub Judge to pass a speaking order stating reasons for granting leave to file additional written statement. Now the question is whether for the said reason alone I should interfere with the impugned order. To decide that it is necessary to go into the contentions raised by the parties. Even as per the version of petitioner, property originally belonged to M/s. Common Wealth Trust Ltd as per a Kanam assignment deed which assigned its right to Kodakkal Tile Factory from whom petitioner got it as per assignment deed No.547 of 1994. It is also the case of petitioner that due to a change in the W.P.C.No.20238 of 2010 : 3 : direction of flow of the adjoining river the property happened to be divided into two, situated on the either sides of the river. The stand taken by respondent/State is that 46.16 acres of land belonged to Palanippa and his wife who were partners of Kodakkal Tile Factory. There was a proceeding for surrender of excess land. Palanippa and his wife approached the TLB seeking exemption and that request was allowed by the TLB on specific direction that the property will be used only for industrial purposes and order to that effect was passed on 31-12-1980. It is also contention of respondent that Palanippa and his wife violated terms and conditions of the order dated 31-12-1980 and hence the TLB took up the matter with the SLB seeking permission to take possession of the property under Section 81(c) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. It is also the contention of respondent that in the circumstance TLB issued prohibitory orders restraining collection of revenue for the disputed property. 5. It is in the light of the above contention though, after about two years that respondent filed I.A.No.1646 of 2010 seeking leave of the court to file additional written statement to the effect that in the nature of relief sought for by the petitioner, the TLB is a necessary party. The question at that stage was only whether leave could be granted to the respondent. It is not as if in the additional written statement a contention totally unconnected to the one in the original written statement is taken up. Mere fact of W.P.C.No.20238 of 2010 : 4 : delay was not sufficient to refuse leave. Having regard to the nature of the contentions already raised by the respondent, I am not inclined to think that the court below ought to have rejected the prayer for leave to file additional written statement. Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits the court to grant leave to file subsequent pleadings. It is not as if learned Sub Judge was not having the power to grant leave as prayed for. I am also not inclined to think that grant of leave in anyway caused prejudice to the petitioner. It is open to the petitioner to take up appropriate stand consequent to the contention of respondent that the TLB is a necessary party to the proceeding. In the circumstance I do not find reason to interfere with the order under challenge. 6. It is pointed out by learned counsel that no further action has been taken on the application of petitioner to compel the TLB and the SLB to produce original of the documents which is already directed to be produced by the said authorities. I make it clear that as the law permits it is open to the petitioner to pursue her remedy to cause production of the documents referred to in her application. With the above direction the writ petition is disposed of. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-