IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15314 of 2009(O)
1. GEORGE,S/O. KUNDUKULANGARA ITTOOP
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THOMA,S/O.CHITTILAPPILLIKUNNATH LAZAR,
... Respondent
2. ANDREWS, S/O. PALLISSERY PORINCHU,
3. THOLUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT REP.BY ITS
For Petitioner :SRI.JIJO PAUL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :03/06/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.15314 of 2009 - O
---------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd 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 reliefs:
“i) To call for the originals of the records leading to
Ext.P7 and set aside and quash the same.
ii) To direct the 1st Additional Munsiff, Thrissur to
permit the petitioner/plaintiff to implead the 3rd
respondent herein as the additional 3rd defendant in
Ext.P1 suit and to allow the amendment to the plaint
as prayed for in Ext.P4.”
2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1448/2006 pending
on the file of the Munsiff Court, Thrissur. Suit was one for
perpetual prohibitory injunction. After a report from a
commissioner was obtained in the suit, petitioner /plaintiff moved
an application for amendment of the plaint and also for
impleading the local authority, Panchayath, as an additional
defendant in the suit. That application was dismissed by the
learned Munsiff by Ext.P7 order. Correctness of that order is
W.P.(C).No.15314 of 2009 – O
2
impeached by the plaintiff in this writ petition invoking the
supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner.
4. It is submitted that the presence of the Panchayath at
least as a proper party in the suit is essential for fixation of the
water channel which is also one of the matters covered by the
suit. Learned Munsiff has found that no relief is claimed against
the Panchayath and the application for amendment and
impleadment of the Panchayath as a party in the suit has been
made at the fag end of the suit. It is brought to my notice that
the suit is posted for trial in the special list tomorrow. Whether
the Panchayath has to be impleaded as a proper party in the suit
for fixation of the water channel over which also some disputes
arise in the adjudication of the suit, of course, was a matter
which should have been known to the plaintiff even before a
report from commissioner was collected. Merit of the application
moved by the plaintiff has to be examined with reference to the
statutory interdiction under Section 249 of the Panchayath Act
W.P.(C).No.15314 of 2009 – O
3
which mandates advance suit notice. Pending suit a notice has
been issued to the Panchayath under Section 249 of the above
Act is the submission of the counsel. Whatever that be, having
regard to the fact that the suit is already listed for trial, I do not
find any merit in entertaining this writ petition at this stage.
The writ petition is dismissed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE.
bkn/-
