ABDUL ASEES Vs. GOPINADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext.P15, P16 and P23 orders passed by the Munsiff's Court, Varkala in O.S.No.265/1999 are under challenge in this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the plaintiff in the said suit. Exts.P15 and P16 are orders disallowing the prayer for impleadment of additional defendants. Ext.P23 is one rejecting the prayer for removal of Advocate Commissioner appointed in the case for measuring out the properties.

(2.) The suit is one for fixation of boundary and anciliary reliefs. The property of the plaintiff has been scheduled as plaint A schedule property, and that of the defendant as plaint B schedule property. Earlier, the suit was decreed, but it was challenged in appeal by the plaintiff himself. It is the second stage of litigation which is now pending before the trial court after a remand of the case by the appellate court. Upon the application of the plaintiff, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to measure out the properties and to fix the southern boundary of plaint A schedule property with the assistance of Taluk Surveyor. However, in the meanwhile, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.2693/2019 for impleadment of the wife and mother-in-law of the defendant as additional defendants in the suit stating the reason that he got information that the aforesaid persons are having some right over the plaint B schedule property. During the pendency of the above impleadment application, the mother-in-law of the defendant died, and accordingly, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1/2020 for the impleadment of legal representatives of the mother-in-law of defendant. The learned Munsiff dismissed I.A.No.2693/2019 vide Ext.P15 order holding that the impleadment sought for cannot be allowed since the plaintiff had not made clear as to what kind of right or interest the proposed additional defendants were having over the plaint schedule properties. Consequential to the dismissal of I.A.No.2693/2019, I.A.No.1/2020 was also dismissed as infructuous vide Ext.P16 order. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.16/2021 for the removal of the Advocate Commissioner appointed in the case.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.