K. BHARATHAN Vs. ABOOBACKERM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel on both sides.

(2.) Petitioner in both the cases is the additional 2nd defendant in O.S No.13 of 2016 pending before the Sub Court, Chavakkad. The suit is one for recovery of money. Ext.P1 is copy of the plaint. Respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs in the suit. It is seen from the averments in the plaint that the plaint schedule property and building belonged to the respondents and they permitted the original defendant (a private limited company) to run a lodge on a certain license fee. It is the allegation in the plaint that there was default in paying the license fee and therefore, after the expiry of the license period, the plaintiffs/respondents took back the building from the original first defendant. The plaint claim is Rs. 34,36,666/- (Rupees thirty four lakhs thirty six thousand and six hundred and sixty six only) with interest. Along with the suit, an application for attachment of the property belonged to the original defendant was filed.

(3.) Ext.P2 is the application for attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 of the C.P.C. Ext.P3 is the order passed by the court below in that matter. Ext.P4 is the objection filed by the original defendant. Subsequently, Ext.P5 application is filed by the additional 2nd defendant claiming that the property under attachment belonged to him personally and the property is not an asset of the company. In that matter, Ext.P6 counter statement is filed by the plaintiffs/respondents. Thereafter, Ext.P7 application is filed by the respondents for impleading the petitioner as supplemental 2nd defendant in the suit. Against that petition, Ext.P8 counter statement is filed by the petitioner. Ext.P9 is the petition filed by the respondents to amend the plaint justifying the reason for impleadment of the supplemental 2nd defendant. Ext.P11 is the counter statement filed by the petitioner in that matter. The impleadment and amendment applications were considered by the court below and Ext.P13 common order has been passed, which is under challenge in O.P (C) No.1433 of 2016. When the matter was admitted to file, this Court passed an order of stay, which was produced before the court below. Then the petitioner moved the court below with Ext.P14 interlocutory application as I.A No.1105 of 2016, which is filed to review the order of adjournment of the case and to hear the claim petition on an early date. In that matter, Ext.P15 order is passed, which is challenged in O.P(C) No.1880 of 2016.