SEBASTIAN VARKEY Vs. JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Above original petition is filed challenging Ext.P6 order passed in I.A. No.7 of 2023 in O.S. No.336 of 2021 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kattappana, wherein the request of the petitioner for impleadment as additional 2nddefendant in the suit has been declined.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for disposal of the original petition are as follows:- O.S. No.336/2021 on the files of Munsiff Court, Kattappana is filed by the 1strespondent as plaintiff seeking a decree restraining the 2nd respondent/defendant i.e. Kattappana Municipality from trespassing into the schedule property or from dismantling or destroying the building therein or from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application as I.A. No.7/2023 seeking to get himself impleaded as additional 2nddefendant.

(3.) The specific contention of the petitioner is that injunction is sought against the local authority by stating incorrect facts. Petitioner would contend that as per the averment in the plaint, eviction notices were issued by the local authority earlier also, against which the plaintiff has moved this Court filing WP(C) No.5772 of 2017, and obtained stay of the proceedings and the said stay order granted is still in force. It is further contended in the plaint that in spite of the stay order granted by this Court, the southern boundary holder who is an influential person who is impleaded as the 6threspondent in the writ petition is influencing the Government officials and making all possible ways and means to somehow dispossess the plaintiff from the schedule property. It is as part of the said conspiracy the defendant had issued provisional order dtd. 29/10/2021 against the plaintiff. Petitioner would further contend that the 6threspondent in WP(C) No.5772/2017 and the southern boundary holder of the schedule property referred to in the plaint is none other than the petitioner herein, which could be revealed from a perusal of Ext.P2 judgment in WP(C) No.5772/2017. The petitioner would also submit that though it is averred in the plaint that the interim order granted in WP(C) 5772/2017 is still in force, the said writ petition was heard and dismissed as per Ext.P2 judgment.