LAWS(KER)-2014-1-86

GEORGE P. CHERUKOTH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On January 06, 2014
George P. Cherukoth Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Petition is filed to set aside Ext. P5 Order. An application was filed by the petitioner herein before the Reference Court in L.A.R. No. 76/2011 for getting himself impleaded in that matter. That petition was dismissed by the Reference Court holding that impleadment petition is not maintainable. That order is challenged in this petition.

(2.) This application is strongly opposed by the 3rd respondent, who represent the Association on whose behalf the reference was sought and application was filed before the District Collector. The aforesaid L.A.R. 76/2011 was considered along with 20 other cases. It was stated that evidence was recorded and completed in that case and it was actually posted for judgment. In the meanwhile, a petition was filed by one of the claimants stating that two more documents are to be filed in order to sustain his claim for enhancement of compensation. That petition was allowed and this court directed that the case shall be disposed of by 15.02.2014. Thereafter, this petition was filed by the petitioner herein, who is not a party to the reference.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent has filed statement before the District Collector seeking reference under section 18 on behalf of all the parties who, according to the petitioner, are co-owners. The petitioner herein would even contend that the document already produced in court/authority are fraudulent and concocted in order to defraud the court/authority and the members of the Association. All the allegations levelled against the 3rd respondent are strongly opposed by the learned counsel contending that no claimant has come forward stating that the documents were not produced or that the evidence was not properly let in. In fact, after closing the evidence, the case was posted for judgment. However, it was allowed to be re-opened only to produce two more documents and that was the reason this court directed the disposal of L.A.R. by 15.2.2014.