IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15679 of 2009(O)
1. ALL KERALA TILE MANUFACTURES
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VARGHESE, S/O.OUSEPH,
... Respondent
2. KERALA STATE REPRESENTED BY
3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR.
4. GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND
5. VILLAGE OFFICER, EAST CHALAKUDY
6. AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :12/06/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.15679 of 2009 - O
---------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India seeking the following relief:
“To call for records leading to Ext.P3 and set aside the same”
2. The 1st respondent herein filed a suit as O.S.No.92/09 as
against respondents 2 to 6 for a perpetual prohibitory injunction to
restrain them from granting any permission to remove soil from
paddy fields scheduled in the plaint. In that suit, the petitioner
moved an application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC to implead it as
an additional defendant stating that any decree/order to be passed
in the suit will have disastrous consequences on its members who
are engaged in the removal of clay for manufacturing tiles.
Impleadment sought for by the petitioner in that suit was objected
to by the plaintiff. Learned Munsiff after hearing both sides passed
Ext.P3 order disallowing that application. Impeaching the
correctness and propriety of that order, petitioner has filed this writ
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India invoking
supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.
3. The learned Government Pleader has taken notice for
W.P.(C).No.15679 of 2009 – O
2
respondents 2 to 6. Notice to 1st respondent, plaintiff in the suit is
dispensed, as I find notice to him on the submission made and the
facts presented is not necessary.
4. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner at length and
also perusing Ext.P3 order passed by the learned Munsiff, I find
there is no impropriety or illegality in the order declining the
request made by the petitioner for impleadment as an additional
defendant in the suit filed by the 1st respondent. The petitioner has
to work out his remedy by taking appropriate proceedings as
envisaged by law and on the facts and circumstances presented, it
is seen that he cannot resist the claim of the plaintiff in the suit
which is sought for and confined to the defendants in that suit. The
order/decree likely to be passed in the suit may have its
ramification and consequences on the petitioner or its members,
cannot be given any consideration, when the plaintiff has sought for
relief of injunction only against defendants impleaded in his suit.
The writ petition is dismissed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE.
bkn/-