Pulikkal Abdul Latheef vs Poovamkulath Thottam … on 17 March, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP.No. 109 of 2009()


1. PULIKKAL ABDUL LATHEEF,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. ARUVANPALLY PUTHIYAPARAYIL

                        Vs



1. POOVAMKULATH THOTTAM PUTHIYAPURAYIL
                       ...       Respondent

2. BAPPUTHANTAVIDA HAMZA,

3. BAPPUTHANTAVIDA PATHUMMA,

4. BAPPUTHANTAVIDA HASSAN,

5. BAPPUTHANTAVIDA AMINA,

6. BAPPUTHANTAVIDA AYISHA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.P.PANKAJAKSHAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.C.KHALID

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :17/03/2009

 O R D E R
                           K.T.SANKARAN, J.
                   ---------------------------------------------
                         C.R.P.No.109 of 2009
                   ---------------------------------------------
              Dated this the 17th day of March, 2009



                                   ORDER

The petitioners are assignees from the plaintiffs in

O.S.No.258 of 2003 on the file of the court of the Additional

Munsiff of Kannur. The suit was filed by the assignors of the

petitioners for fixation of boundary. The suit was decreed by the

trial court as per judgment and decree dated 28.2.2006. The

defendants filed appeal as A.S.No.40 of 2006 on the court of the

Subordinate Judge of Thalassery challenging the judgment and

decree of the trial court. In that appeal, the petitioners herein

filed I.A.No.3959 of 2008 to get themselves impleaded as

additional respondents in the appeal. That application was

opposed by the defendants/appellants. The court below

dismissed the application for impleading by the order dated 5th

January 2009 which is under challenge in this Revision Petition.

2. The court below dismissed the application for

impleading on the ground that the petitioners purchased the

property on 31.5.2006 and have filed the application for

impleading only on 31.10.2008 and no explanation was offered

CRP No.109/2009 2

for the delay in filing the application. Here the application is

filed by the assignees of the plaintiffs after the decree was

passed by the trial court. The plaintiffs are the respondents in

the appeal. As assignees, the petitioners in the revision are

entitled to protect their interests. They cannot put forward any

contention contrary to the contentions raised by the plaintiffs. In

the case on hand, the plaintiffs being the respondents could only

support the decree passed by the court. As assignees, the

petitioners also would do the same thing. No prejudice would be

caused to the defendants/appellants by allowing the application

for impleading filed by the assignees. Therefore, I am of the

view that the court below should have allowed the application for

impleading. The order passed by the court below is set aside.

I.A.No.3959 of 2008 is allowed. The petitioners shall be

impleaded as the additional respondents in A.S.No.40 of 2006,

Sub Court, Thalassery.

The Civil Revision Petition is allowed as above.

K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE
csl