V J THOMAS Vs. PATHROSE ABRAHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 364 of 1997 of the Additional Sub Court, Kottayam. The suit was filed by the plaintiff against defendants 1 to 3, who are respondents 3 to 5 in the revision for a declaration of title and possession in respect of the plaint schedule properties and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiff from enclosing plaint item 1 upto northern boundary of the third defendant's property.

(2.) According to the petitioner, on the southern side of the plaint schedule property, the property owned by the third defendant is situated. Both these properties are separated by an old stone kayyala put up on the northern boundary line of the third defendant's property. There is a mud wall on the southern side of the plaint schedule property and some space is left on its southern side as kottapadu for maintenance of the mud wall. The kottapadu also forms part of the plaint schedule property. The suit was filed when the defendants attempted to prevent the plaintiff from enclosing the plaint schedule property upto the boundary of the third defendant's property. The suit was filed against the defendants in a representative capacity.

(3.) There was a publication in the paper under Order I Rule 8. The suit was decreed ex pane. According to the plaintiff, a Commissioner was appointed to implement the judgment and at that time, present respondents 1 and 2 filed two petitions to implead them and to set aside the ex parte under Order I Rule 8(3). This was objected to by the plaintiff. But the court below by the impugned order, allowed the applications. Hence, this revision is filed.