Kunju Kunju Kutty vs Baby Varghese on 7 June, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 16831 of 2005(D)


1. KUNJU KUNJU KUTTY, S/O.PAPPY,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. PRASANNAN, PARAYIL ANCHANIL VEEDU,
3. SUNNY, THOTTATHIL VAYALIL VEEDU,

                        Vs



1. BABY VARGHESE, THOTTIYIL VEEDU,
                       ...       Respondent

2. MARIAMMA VARUGHESE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.HARIDAS

                For Respondent  :SRI.SATHISH NINAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :07/06/2007

 O R D E R
                             PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

                  ..........................................................

                            W.P.(C)No.16831 OF 2005

                  ...........................................................

                       DATED THIS THE 7TH JUNE, 2007


                                   J U D G M E N T

Defendants 1 to 3 are the petitioners in this Writ Petition under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India. They impugn Ext.P2 findings

entered by the learned Munsiff on an issue as to whether the suit is

bad for non-joinder of necessary parties which was raised on the basis

of a contention raised by the defendants that the Panchayat is also a

necessary party. The suit pertains to a pathway and the contention is

that the pathway is vested in the Panchayat and is not the private

pathway of the plaintiff-1st respondent. In this Court the petitioners

have produced Ext.P1 resolution pertaining to a particular road within

the limit of the Panchayat. There is controversy between the parties

regarding the identity of the road which is mentioned in Ext.P1.

2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, Sri.Sathish

Ninan, learned counsel for the 1st respondent-plaintiff would submit

that the 1st respondent does not want to take any risk and will rather

implead the Panchayat also as a party and seek necessary amendment

of the plaint so as to incorporate appropriate reliefs since the suit as

obtaining now is only for injunction.

3. In view of the above submission, I set aside Ext.P2 and

WP(C)N0.16831/05

-2-

direct the learned Munsiff to allow the application, if any, filed by the

1st respondent-plaintiff to implead the Panchayat. It is open to the

plaintiff to seek appropriate amendment of the plaint, after the court

passes orders on the impleadment application.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

tgl

WP(C)N0.16831/05

-3-