DR. K.P.V.NARAYANAN Vs. CHATHOTH SHUBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in both these cases is the supplemental second defendant in O.S. No.199 of 2016 and O.S. No.211 of 2016, both pending before the Munsiff Court, Thalassery. The first respondent herein, who is the wife of the petitioner filed these suits against the Doctor's Co -operative Society, Thalassery and State Bank of India, Thalassery Branch respectively for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining them from releasing the amount in the name of the petitioner either from Savings Account or from the Fixed Deposit Account on the ground that he is a mentally challenged person incapable of maintaining himself and looking after his affairs. The petitioner filed applications before the Munsiff Court in both these cases for getting himself impleaded as second respondent in the suit as I.A.1369 of 2016 in O.S. No.199 of 2016 and I.A. No.1370 of 2016 in O.S. No.211 of 2016, and by separate orders namely Ext.P6 in O.P(C) No.1767 of 2016 and Ext.P5 in O.P(C).No.1769 of 2016, the court below allowed those applications after conducting enquiry under Order XXXII Rule 15 of Code of Civil Procedure, and permitted him to be impleaded as second respondent in both the suits. The first respondent herein filed I.A. No.841 of 2016 in O.S. No.199 of 2016 and I.A. No.874 of 2016 in O.S. No.211 of 2016 for temporary injunction restraining the only defendant shown in the suits namely the Bank and the Society from disbursing the amounts. But no interim injunction was granted in both the cases. In view of the pendency of those applications, he could not withdraw the amount for his maintenance and for medical expenses. In view of the pendency of the suits, bank is not allowing him to withdraw the amounts as well. In both the cases, the original defendants have filed detailed counter denying the allegations in the petition and even challenged the maintainability of the suit. In view of the pendency of those applications, he is not able to withdraw any amount from his account even to meet his requirements. So the petitioner has no other remedy except approaching this court seeking the following reliefs :

(2.) Considering the nature of relief claimed, this Court felt that these petitions can be disposed of by dispensing with notice to respondents after getting report from the concerned Court. Accordingly a report has been called for and the Munsiff Court has sent a report dated 25.7.2016, which reads as follows :

(3.) Heard Sri.K.C. Santhosh Kumar, counsel for the petitioner and Sri. R.S. Kalkura counsel appearing for the second respondent in O.P(C). No.1769 of 2016.