ABU Vs. ASIYA @ AYISHA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main prayers in this Original Petition (Civil) are as follows:

(2.) Heard Sri.R. Sreehari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/third party, who seeks impleadment in the suit.

(3.) It is averred that O.S. No.275 of 2015 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Ottapalam is a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction which is instituted by the 1st respondent herein, against respondents 2 to 6 with respect to 22 cents of property in Survey No.77/3 of Marayamangalam Village. It is also pointed out that earlier O.S. No.158 of 2007 which was filed against A.S. No.25 of 2013 is now pending before the Sub Court, Ottapalam. It is the case of the petitioner that with respect to the very same property and other properties that O.S. No.479 of 2013 is filed before the Munsiff's Court, Ottapalam by the petitioner, which is a suit for partition. But, that in view of the numerous persons in the party array, the said suit is delayed. That, without impleading the petitioner herein, the 1st respondent has filed the above O.S. No.275 of 2015 before the Munsiff's Court, Ottapalam, which according to the petitioner, is with respect to the property in which the petitioner had obtained purchase certificate as per Ext.P5. That, on coming to the pendency of O.S. No.275 of 2015, the petitioner herein had filed Ext.P6, I.A.No.358 of 2018 in the O.S. seeking to remove the suit from the list and also Ext.P7 I.A. No.359 of 2018 to allow the petitioner herein to be impleaded as additional 6th defendant in O.S. No.275 of 2015. That the 1st respondent herein/plaintiff in O.S. No.275 of 2015, had filed Ext.P8 objection to Ext.P6 I.A. and Ext.P9 objection to Ext.P8 I.A. Thereafter, the court below as per Ext.P10 order dated 07.02.2008 had dismissed the petitioner's Exts.P6 and P7 I.A. No.359 of 2018 as per the said common order. The main ground on which the petitioner's application for impleadment has been dismissed is on the aspect that the petitioner has not produced any document to show that he is having any right over the property. The petitioner placed reliance on Ext.P5 purchase certificate. To a specific query put by the Court as to whether the petitioner had produced Ext.P5 purchase certificate or any other documents, in Ext.P8 I.A. for impleadment to establish his right over the property in question, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that such documents were not filed. Accordingly, Sri.R. Sreehari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that leave may be granted to the petitioner to withdraw Exts.P6 and P7 I.A.'s with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application for impleadment and to enable him to produce necessary documents in the affidavit in support of the application and such application may be directed to consider the court below concerned. In the light of the submission made by the petitioner, it is ordered that leave is granted to the petitioner to withdraw Exts.P6 and P7 I.A.'s with liberty to him to file proper application along with supporting affidavit, after producing necessary documents in support of the claim over the property in question, without much delay, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Consequently, the impugned Ext.P10 I.A. No.358 of 2018 will stand modified with the direction that Exts.P6 and P7 I.A.'s will stand dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application as aforestated. On the petitioner filing appropriate application as aforestated, without much delay, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment, the court below after hearing both sides, will pass orders thereon, in accordance with law, disposing of these I.A.'s, without much delay, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of filing of such application. Until orders are passed by the court below as aforestated, further proceedings in O.S. No.275 of 2015 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Ottapalam will stand deferred. However, it is made clear that the petitioner does not file such applications before the court below, within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment, then the benefit of this direction will lose its efficacy. The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment before the court below for necessary information. With these observations and directions, the Original Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.