IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22310 of 2010(O)
1. SINDHU RANI, AGED 36,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUNIL KUMAR, AGED 38
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :16/07/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
====================================
W.P(C) No.22310 of 2010
====================================
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
This Writ Petition is filed by defendant in O.S.No.163 of 2008
of the court of learned Munsiff, Punalur challenging Exts.P2 and P3
orders. Respondent claiming to be owner in possession of suit
property sought a decree for injunction against petitioner
trespassing into the said property and committing waste.
Petitioner has a case that suit property actually does not belong to
the respondent, she is staying in the property and suit is filed in
collusion with her husband with whom she is having some
proceedings before the Family Court. Petitioner filed Ext.P1,
application (I.A. No.994 of 2009) to implead her husband as
additional defendant in the suit. Learned Munsiff passed Ext.P2,
order on that application directing that application will be
considered along with the suit as evidence is required to be taken.
Yet another application filed by petitioner is I.A. No.993 of 2009
seeking interim order of injunction against respondent
trespassing into the suit property. On that application learned
Munsiff passed Ext.P3, order directing that the said application
W.P(C) No.22310 of 2010
-: 2 :-
also will be considered along with the suit. Learned counsel for
petitioner contends that Exts.P2 and P3 orders are bad in law. He
also stated about circumstances in which respondent filed the
suit against petitioner colluding with husband of petitioner.
Learned counsel further stated that petitioner is still residing in
the suit property and hence entitled to get relief as prayed for in
I.A. No.993 of 2009.
2. So far as request for impleadment vide Ext.P1,
application is concerned I must bear in mind that respondent-
plaintiff is the master of the suit and he is not claiming any relief
against husband of the petitioner. Learned Munsiff observed that
evidence is required in the matter and posted that application
along with the suit. I do not find anything illegal in that finding
requiring interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
3. So far as Ext.P3 is concerned grievance of petitioner is
that in spite of she being in possession of the suit property and
requesting for interim injunction against respondent trespassing
into that property that application has not been considered and
instead it is posted along with the suit. I make it clear that it will
be open to petitioner to seek review of Ext.P3, order and request
W.P(C) No.22310 of 2010
-: 3 :-
learned Munsiff to consider that application before the suit is
disposed of. I also make it clear that if petitioner has a
contention in her written statement that the suit is result of
collusion between her husband and respondent it is open to her
to adduce evidence in that line.
Writ Petition is closed with the above observation.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv