THARA S.L. Vs. SAJEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The additional 2nd defendant in O.S.No.688/2002 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Nedumangad has filed this Revision Petition challenging the order dated 03.10.2013 of the Sub Court, Nedumangad in C.M.A.No.19/2010. The facts in brief are thus: The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.688/2002 for an injunction restraining the 2nd respondent in this petition from trespassing into the plaint A-Schedule property, destroying its boundaries or committing any waste therein. Injunction was also sought to restrain the defendant from causing any hindrance or obstruction to the plaintiff using B-Schedule for ingress and egress to A-Schedule property having an extent of 13 cents in R.S.No.1544/1 of Nellanad Village, from Venjaramoodu- Kilimanoor Road, which passes along the northern side of the 2nd respondent's property and has a width of one metre and a length of 55 metres.

(2.) The 1st defendant filed a written statement contending that B-Schedule pathway as alleged, is not in existence. He was the owner in possession of 55.59 Ares of land lying on the south of A-Schedule property, and the property of the Local Panchayat used as a market place, lying on the west of the A-Schedule property.

(3.) Despite filing a written statement challenging the right of the plaintiff, the 2nd respondent did not contest the suit, and sold the property to the revision petitioner, who was impleaded as additional 2nd defendant in the suit. The revision petitioner met the 1st defendant and enquired about the details of the pending suit and she was made to believe that the suit is not concerning the property sold to her and that he has already filed a detailed written statement, and would contest the suit. On the assurance given by him that the suit would be properly defended, the revision petitioner, however, engaged a lawyer to defend herself in the suit.