IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27154 of 2009(O)
1. KOYA HAJI, S/O.MUHAMMAD HAJI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. T.RAVISANKAR
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :29/09/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.27154 of 2009 - O
---------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of September, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“i) To call for the records leading to this case and
peruse the same.
ii) To issue a direction to the Sub Court, Ottappalam
to consider I.A.No.325/2009 filed by the petitioner
seeking impleading in O.S.No.32/67 within a stipulated
time.
iii) To direct the Sub Court, Ottappalam not to
proceed further with regard to the sale of the property
which is the subject matter of O.S.No.22/07 on the file
of the Munsiff Court, Manjeri till a decision is taken on
the impleading petition”.
2. Petitioner, who is not a party to the proceedings
covered by O.S.No.32 of 1967 on the file of the Sub Court,
Ottappalam, seeks issue of directions/orders to that court for
considering the application moved by him for his impleadment as
an additional party in the proceedings. O.S.No.32 of 1967 on the
file of the above court is a suit for partition in which a preliminary
decree had been passed allotting shares to the parties who are
W.P.(C).No.27154 of 2009 – O
2
found entitled thereto in the plaint properties. Pursuant thereto
an application filed for passing of a final decree is pending
consideration and a receiver appointed by the court is in
possession of the properties. A suit filed by the receiver against
the present petitioner as O.S.No.22 of 2007 alleging trespass and
seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction is now
pending before the Munsiff Court, Manjeri. An application for
interim injunction moved by the receiver/plaintiff was allowed by
the trial court and it was challenged by the present petitioner in
appeal. The appellate court reversing the order of injunction
directed the court below to consider the matter afresh and that
awaits such consideration. That circumstance is canvassed by
the petitioner to seek his impleadment in the final decree
proceedings in the suit for partition.
3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. The fact that he claims possession over the property
covered by the suit for partition is no ground enabling the
petitioner to get himself impleaded in the final decree
proceedings. The further fact that the receiver had instituted a
W.P.(C).No.27154 of 2009 – O
3
suit against the petitioner alleging trespass and that is pending
for consideration is also not a circumstance enabling the
petitioner for his impleadment as an additional party in a final
decree proceedings. petitioner has to work out his remedy in
appropriate proceedings. Mere fact that he has moved an
application before the court below for his impleadment in the final
decree proceedings will not entitle him to seek for issue of
orders/directions from this Court for consideration of that
application. He may invite the attention of the court below to his
application, and, if so invited, the court below shall dispose that
application on its merit.
Writ petition is disposed as indicated above.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE.
bkn/-
