AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Bhavadasan, J.—In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the reliefs sought for are as follows:
a) To set aside Ext.P7 order passed in I.A.No. 168/2011 in O.S. 229/2005 of Munsiff''s Court, Thiruvalla.
b) To call for the records leading to the issuance of Ext.P7 order passed by the learned Munsiff''s Court, Thiruvalla in I.A. No. 168/2011 in O.S.No. 229/2005 and quash the same.
The short facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are as follows:
The Petitioners instituted O.S. 229 of 2005 before the Munsiff''s Court, Thiruvalla, which was one for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the Defendants from committing mischief in their property. The defendants entered appearance and filed written statement, copy of which is produced as Ext. P2. There after it appears that one OP (C). 958/2011. 2of the Defendants filed O.S. 111 of 2006 seeking to have a Will declared null and void. Copy of the said plaint is produced as Ext.P3. Petitioners have entered appearance in the said suit and filed a written statement, which is marked as Ext. P4. This Court ordered joint trial of the two suits.
It appears that during the pendency of the suits, The Petitioners, who are the Plaintiffs in O.S. 229 of 2005 executed a mutual exchange deed in respect of two items of properties involved in the suit. The deed was executed as early as in 2007. Long There after, when the suits became ripe for trial, The Petitioners moved I.A.168 of 2011 seeking to amend the plaint in O.S. 229 of 2005. The trial court, after an elaborate consideration of the matter, had come to the conclusion that there is no merit in the and had dismissed the same by Ext.P7 order.
One fails to understand what is wrong with the order passed by the learned Munsiff. Apart from the fact that the exchange deed was executed during the pendency of the suit, it was executed by the Plaintiffs in the suit. OP (C). 958/2011. There is nothing to show that there is an identity problem regarding the property and it is clear that the present attempt is nothing but an attempt to protract the trial of the suit. The learned Munsiff has clearly observed that the amendment as sought for has no bearing on the issues involved in the suit and the only intention is to delay the trial of the suit. The court below has rightly dismissed the petition.
This original petition is without merits and it is accordingly dismissed.