1. The revision petitioner is the 2nd defendant in O.S. No.825/07 on the files of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam. The 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit is filed against the petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein, who is the 1st defendant in the suit. The suit was one for restoration of possession of the plaint schedule building and for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from inducting strangers into the plaint schedule building, filed under Sec.6 of the Specific Relief Act (for short 'the Act').

2. The plaint averments in short are as follows (parties are referred to as in the Original Suit): The first defendant is the owner of Plot No.515 situated in Gandhi Nagar, Ernakulam. She obtained it under the EWS Scheme of the GCDA on 25/11/1980. She executed an agreement with the GCDA agreeing to pay the balance purchase price of the house in 216 monthly instalments of Rs.52.57 each. After taking possession of the building on 25/11/1980, the building was assessed in the name of the Secretary, GCDA, with No.38/1144. On 30/11/1980, the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the 1st defendant for letting the building on leave and licence. The agreement was for a period of three years and monthly payment was Rs.50/-. Rs.3,500/- was paid as advance after the agreement and the plaintiff took possession of the building and started residence with his family. Subsequent to the execution of the agreement, the 1st defendant approached the plaintiff and told him that she is prepared to sell the building to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.75,000/-, after adjusting Rs.3,500/- given as advance, the balance amount of Rs.71,500/- has to be paid by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant and the same was paid on 20/1/1981. An endorsement was made to the above effect in the agreement on 20/1/1981. She handed over all the documents pertaining to the building to the plaintiff. Besides, according to the said agreement, the plaintiff has to remit all balance instalments to the GCDA. The plaintiff was regular in paying the instalments to the GCDA. The last and final instalment was paid on 23/6/2005. The plaintiff also paid property tax to the Corporation. Though the plaintiff tried to contact the 1st defendant for getting assignment of the building, he could not contact her since she changed her residence. Even now the whereabouts of the 1st defendant are not known to the plaintiff. The plaintiff continued his residence in the building till 1995. Between 1995 to 2006, he let out the building to various tenants. In the year 2006, plaintiff renovated the building expending about Rs. 3 lakhs. He replaced the tiled roof with RCC roofing. Though the building was not let out after 2006, it is in the absolute possession of the plaintiff. On 26/6/2007, the plaintiff was summoned to the Gandhi Nagar Police Station based on a complaint filed by the 2nd defendant. On enquiry, it is understood that a complaint has been filed by the 2nd defendant alleging that the plaintiff trespassed into the plaint schedule building on 25/6/2007 and the building is in the ownership of the 2nd defendant. When the plaintiff submitted all the documents before the police, the police directed the parties to approach the civil court. Thereafter, on 29/6/2007, the 2nd defendant in collusion with the 1st defendant criminally trespassed into the plaint schedule building and forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff from the building and illegally took possession of the same. Therefore, the plaintiff approached the civil court for a decree of restoration of possession and prohibitory injunction under Sec.6 of the Act.

3. The 1st defendant filed a written statement in the court below contending as follows: The 1st defendant is an unnecessary party to the suit. The plaintiff was not in possession of the plaint schedule building at any time during six months prior to the institution of the suit. Therefore, no suit can b