IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21390 of 2009(O)
1. K.SARADHA, W/O.KUTTAN NAMBIAR,
... Petitioner
2. SOUMYA T.P.,
3. T.P.SANAL,
Vs
1. GOVINDAN NAMBIR,
... Respondent
2. K.MINU,
For Petitioner :SRI.SRINATH GIRISH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :29/07/2009
O R D E R
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