IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3624 of 2010(O)
1. PADMAVATHI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MADHU
... Respondent
2. RETHNAMMA,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :09/02/2010
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR , J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). No. 3624 of 2010
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of February, 2010.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner who is a stranger to O.S. No. 261 of
2006 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Kayamkulam, seeks
a direction to the court below to dispose of I.A. No. 237 of
2010 expeditiously before proceeding with the trial of the
said suit.
2. The said suit filed by the respondents herein is one
for injunction restraining the Government from evicting the
plaintiff from the puramboke land in question. According to
the writ petitioner, herself and four others had filed a
complaint before the Sub Divisional Magistrate alleging that
the respondents herein had encroached into the Pamba
Irrigation Project (PIP) Canal puramboke used as a public
way and the Sub Divisional Magistrate has passed a
conditional order under Section 133 Cr.P.C. They have
further contended that the respondents had filed O.S. No.
255 of 2006 for a perpetual injunction against the writ
W.P.(C) No. 3624/2010 : 2 :
petitioner and others restraining them from cutting open a
new pathway. The further case of the petitioner is that the
Government had issued a notice dated 28.07.2006 calling
upon the respondents to vacate from the puramboke land.
It is at that juncture that the respondents have filed the
present suit O.S. No. 261 of 2006 against the Government.
The respondents very well know that the petitioner and
others are interested in evicting the respondents from the
puramboke land in question and therefore they are
necessary parties to the present suit and that is why they
filed I.A. No. 237 of 2010 seeking their impleadment as
additional defendants 3 to 7.
3. This Court had called for a report from the Munsiff
Court, Kayamkulam. The learned Munsiff in his letter dated
05.02.2010 has stated that the suit stands posted for trial
on 09.02.2010 and while so, on 27.01.2010 I.A. No. 237 of
2010 was filed by the petitioner and four others seeking
their impleadment as additional defendants and since there
W.P.(C) No. 3624/2010 : 3 :
was no application to advance the hearing of I.A No. 237 of
2010 to an early date, the said application has not been
taken up for consideration on merits.
4. The learned Munsiff cannot be faulted in not taking
I.A. No. 237 of 2010 on an early date particularly when the
suit itself stands posted for trial. The only course open to
this Court is to direct the Musiff to pass orders on I.A. No.
237 of 2010 and then take up the suit for trial. This writ
petition is accordingly disposed of directing the learned
Munsiff to pass orders on I.A. No. 237 of 2010 expeditiously
after giving both sides an opportunity of being heard and
then take up the suit O.S. No. 261 of 2006 for trial. This
order shall not be understood as directing the Munsiff to
pass an order either allowing the application or dismissing
the application. It is for the Munsiff to decide the I.A in
accordance with law.
Dated this the 9th day of February, 2010.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
W.P.(C) No. 3624/2010 : 4 :
rv