Kerala High Court
K.P.Sulochana Amma vs Narayanan Namboodiri on 18 March, 2010
Author: P.Bhavadasan
Bench: P.Bhavadasan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9005 of 2010(O)
1. K.P.SULOCHANA AMMA, AGED 75 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI,
... Respondent
2. SUBRAMANYAN NAMBOODIRI,
3. EZHUVATH JAYASREE,
4. EZHUVATH RAJAN MENON, AGED 69 YEARS,
5. NILAMBUR KOVILAKAM REPRESENTED
For Petitioner :SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :18/03/2010
O R D E R
P. BHAVADASAN, J.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
W.P.(C) No. 9005 of 2010
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Dated this the 18th day of March, 2010
JUDGMENT
The limited prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to the Sub Court, Manjeri to take up I.A. No.1469 of 2009 in O.S. No.120 of 2006 and dispose of the same and till then no final decision may be taken in the suit.
2. Respondents 1 and 2 instituted O.S.No.120 of 2006 before the Sub Court, Manjeri. Respondents 3 to 5 are the defendants. The plaintiffs claimed that they are "santhi" and "thandri" of the temple. The 3rd defendant is 'karanavar' of the Nilambur Kovilakam. One Udaya Varman Thirumulpad obtained the temple and after his death, the temple devolved upon his legal heirs viz., defendants 1 and 2 respectively. They claimed that as per the decree in O.S. No.84 of 2005 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Manjeri, the temple is a private temple and so, it cannot be treated as a public temple.
3. In the suit the defendants filed their written W.P.(C) No. 9005/2010 2 statement, denying the averments in the plaint. Coming to know about the suit and averments in the plaint and written statement, the petitioner herein filed I.A. No.1469 of 2009 in the suit under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code seeking to implead him as additional defendants in the suit. The complaint is that the above application was filed on 28-7-2009 and it was posted on various occasions but no order has been passed so far. The petitioner apprehends that the suit may be disposed of without considering the application. Therefore, he prays for a direction to the Sub Court, Manjeri to take up the application before starting trial or disposal of the suit.
4. In the light of the order that is sought to be passed, notice to the respondents is not necessary.
5. The petitioner claims that they have filed I.A. No.1469 of 2009 in O.S. No.120 of 2006 to get himself impleaded as additional defendants in the suit. The petitioner has in ground B given postings of the application on various dates. Petitioner submits that for one reason or W.P.(C) No. 9005/2010 3 other the application is adjourned and it is not being heard.
6. On going through the records, it is felt that the prayer made is just and reasonable.
7. Therefore,there will be a direction to the Sub Court, Manjeri to take up I.A. No.1469 of 2009 in O.S. No.120 of 2006 and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Till then, further trial of the suit shall be kept in abeyance.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE.
mn.