High Court Kerala High Court

P.K.Ramesan vs D.Latha on 16 September, 2008

Kerala High Court
P.K.Ramesan vs D.Latha on 16 September, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 27217 of 2008(M)


1. P.K.RAMESAN, S/O.K.K.KARUNAKARAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. D.LATHA, D/O.KRISHNAN, RESIDING AT
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :16/09/2008

 O R D E R
                          V. RAMKUMAR, J.
                     --------------------------------
                   W.P.(C).NO.27217 OF 2008-M
                    ----------------------------------
            Dated this the 16th day of September, 2008.

                              JUDGMENT

In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, the petitioner, who is the defendant in O.S.No.721/2007 on

the file of the Principal Munsiff, Trivandrum, challenges Ext.P3

order dated 16.7.2008 passed by the learned Munsiff dismissing the

petitioner’s application for impleading a third party by name Appavoo

as additional third defendant in the said suit. The suit is for

realisation of a sum of Rs.76,654/= with interest thereon by way

of arrears of rent. The contention raised by the petitioner is that he

had discharged the rent to one Appavoo. When the plaintiff is

admittedly the land owner in respect of the property in question, the

impleadment of said Appavoo to whom the defendant claims to

have paid the rent was unnecessary, particularly in the face of

the objection by the plaintiff who is the dominus litis. It is for the

plaintiff to decide as to which all persons should be on the party

array in the suit instituted by him, unless the person who is not

joined as party is a necessary party. The court below cannot be

faulted for dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner/defendant.

WPC.NO.27217/2008 .

2

This writ petition is without merit and it is accordingly

dismissed.

V. RAMKUMAR,JUDGE.

cl