IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP(C).No. 475 of 2010(O)
1. K.P.FRANCIS, AGED 45 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MR.NANDAUMARAN, AGED 67 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. MANNATH CONSTRUCTIONS, HOUSE NO.39/1559
3. GOPINATHAN, AGED 70 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW
For Respondent :SRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :22/11/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
O.P.(C) No.475 of 2010
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2010.
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff in O.S.No.79 of 2006 of the court of learned Additional Sub
Judge-I, Ernakulam is the petitioner before me challenging Ext.P4, order dated
September 23, 2010 on I.A.No.574 of 2008 impleading respondent No.1 herein
as additional defendant in the suit. Petitioner instituted suit for money paid on
the basis of a construction-cum-sale agreement (as petitioner would say)
between himself and respondent Nos.2 and 3, a partnership firm and its
managing partner. According to the petitioner, respondent Nos.2 and 3 failed to
complete construction work and hence petitioner is entitled to get refund of the
amount claimed in the plaint together with damages. Respondent No.1 filed
I.A.No.574 of 2008 seeking his impleadment under I Rule 10(2) of the Code of
Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) claiming that he is interested in the suit
property. That application, against objection of petitioner was allowed by the
impugned order. It is contended by learned counsel that the order is bad in law
and that no where it is stated in what way respondent No.1 is interested in the
suit property or in the plaint claim. Learned counsel for respondent No.1
contends that the suit property belonged to the family of respondent No.1 and
that he has a share in the said property. It is also contended by learned
counsel that respondent No.1 was a one time partner of respondent No.2.
OP(C) No.475/2010
2
2. Though not produced, learned counsel for petitioner has given to
me a copy of agreement dated 08.04.2004 referred to in the plaint. In page
No.2 of that agreement, there is reference to the property in respect of which
the construction-cum- sale agreement was allegedly executed as belonging to
the persons referred to therein who include respondent No.1. According to the
learned counsel for petitioner, petitioner is entitled to a statutory charge on the
property for the amount claimed. If that be so and in the light of what is
revealed from the agreement that respondent No.1 is also having interest in the
property in respect of which the agreement is allegedly executed he can be said
to be a necessary or atleast a proper party for adjudication of the dispute. In
that view there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
Petition is dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.
cks