IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19368 of 2008(E)
1. WING COMMANDER.A.ABRAHAM, FLAT NO.2B,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. COMMANDER BENNY M.ANTONY, FLEET
... Respondent
2. M/S.VILAS CONSTRUCTIONS, PUSHPANJALI,
3. MRS.SUKUMARI MURALIDHARAN, PARTNER,
4. MUHAMMED, ALI,S/O.HAMSA,
5. UNNIAN HAJI, S/O.ALAVI HAJI AL-AKBAR
6. INDUSIND BANK, M.G.ROAD, COCHIN-682035-
7. THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
For Petitioner :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :04/07/2008
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 19368 of 2008
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 4th July, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
Adv. Sri. S.P. Chaly appears for the 1st respondent and opposes
the prayers in the writ petition. In view of the fact that the 1st
respondent is the person who is really affected by the reliefs sought
for in this writ petition, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to
the other respondents.
2. The petitioner challenges the order of the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing an application filed by the
petitioner to implead him in the proceedings in E.P.No. 5/2007 in
O.P.No. 67/2000. The petitioner was not a party to the O.P. before
the Commission. However, in the E.P., according to the petitioner,
money in the hands of a garnishee to which the petitioner and others
were also entitled to, was sought to be recovered by the 1st
respondent in excess of his entitlement. The contention of the
petitioner is that the amount at the hands of the garnishee is
supposed to be distributed proportionately to all the allottees of flats.
If the entire decree amount is adjusted from the amount with the
garnishee, the amounts due to other allottees of flats would be
considerably reduced and the 1st respondent would get an undue
advantage. Therefore, according to the petitioner, he is a necessary
party to the E.P in so far as money due to him and other allottees is
also being proceeded against for payment to the 1st respondent.
However, his application for impleading in the E.P has been dismissed
on the ground that the petitioner is a stranger to the proceedings .
3. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the
1st respondent also.
4. I am of opinion that in the circumstances stated above, the
petitioner is a necessary party in the E.P although the petitioner was
not a party in the O.P, in which the decree has been passed, which is
W.P.C. No. 19368/2008 -: 2 :-
sought to be executed in the E.P. Therefore, Ext. P6 order of the 7th
respondent is quashed. It is directed that the petitioner be
impleaded in the E.P and the E.P be proceeded with after hearing the
petitioner also. The writ petition is disposed of as above.
S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/