IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24212 of 2009(O)
1. ANITHA BAAJEE GOVINDAN KRISHNANJANAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. JUSTINE RAJ, KEERTHANAM,SREE LANE-I,
... Respondent
2. SYNDICATE BANK REP.BY ITS MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.ANILKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :24/08/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------
W.P.(C).No.24212 OF 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of August 2009
-------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed seeking the
following reliefs.
i) To call for the records in O.S
No.41/2007 in the Sub Court, Nedumangad, under the
Supervisory jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court
and set aside Ext.P3 order in I.A No. 46/2008 in
O.S o.41 /2007 holding that it is highly illegal,
arbitrary and Court below had failed to exercise
the discretion in a judicial way.
ii) To issue such other writ direction or
order to quash Ext.P3 order as the Court was failed
to exercise the jurisdiction in a legal way.
W.P.(C).No.24212 OF 2009 Page numbers
2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S No.
41 of 2007 on the file of Sub Court, Nedumangad.
Suit is one for money, and the respondent is the
sole defendant in that suit. The case of the
plaintiff in a nutshell is that the first defendant
allowed him to occupy a building owned by him
receiving an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as security.
While he continued in occupation of that building,
the second respondent, bank proceeded against that
building since it had already been given as
security for a loan availed by the first defendant.
Admittedly the property was brought to sale and the
plaintiff was evicted from that building.
Petitioner / plaintiff moved an application for
impleadment of the second respondent / bank as a
codefendant in the suit. The learned Sub Judge
after issuing notice to the proposed second
defendant / bank and hearing the bank as well
W.P.(C).No.24212 OF 2009 Page numbers
dismissed the application for impleadment by Ext.P3
order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P3 order
is challenged in the writ petition invoking the
supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. I heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made
and taking note of the facts and circumstances
presented, I find no notice to the respondents is
necessary and it is dispensed with. The learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impleadment of the second respondent / bank in the
suit is necessary so that he can get appropriate
orders for claiming the excess amount obtained by
the bank by sale of the property which now remain
in the suspense account of the bank. A sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- is still in the suspense account
after satisfying the decree debt due on sale of the
W.P.(C).No.24212 OF 2009 Page numbers
property. If that be so, petitioner can take
appropriate steps as envisaged by law, for which
the impleadment of the bank as a codefendant when
no relief against the bank is claimed in the suit
is not necessary. I find no impropriety or
illegality in Ext.P3 order passed by the learned
Sub Judge disallowing the request of the petitioner
to implead the second respondent as a codefendant
in the suit. Subject to the above observations,
the writ petition is closed.
Sd/-
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
vdv