Ravindranathan vs Valsala Amma on 2 August, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 17215 of 2005(Y)


1. RAVINDRANATHAN, S/O. KANJAVALAPPIL
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. VALSALA AMMA, D/O. PARENGATTIL KOCHU @
                       ...       Respondent

2. MOHANAN, S/O. CHEMBRAMGOTIL KOCHUNNI

                For Petitioner  :SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :02/08/2007

 O R D E R
                        PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
                    ----------------------------------
                     W.P.(C) NO. 17215 of 2005
                    ----------------------------------
              Dated this the 2nd day of August , 2007

                              JUDGMENT

An application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC filed by

the defendants for impleadment of two additional defendants in the

suit on the reason that on the strength of partition effected

subsequent to the filing of the suit, the additional defendants have

come to have interest in the suit property, was dismissed by the

learned Munsiff. Ext.P4 is that order which is under challenge. The

plaintiffs /respondents despite service of notice by this court has not

entered appearance before this court. The contention of the

respondents was that the prospective additional defendants are not

necessary parties and that they have not acquired any interest in the

suit property. The learned Munsiff noticed that the present petitioner

had not raised contention in the written statement that the suit is bad

for non joinder of necessary parties. Taking the view that the plaintiff

is the dominus litus the learned Munsiff decided that it was not

possible to allow the impleadment of additional parties on application

submitted by the defendant who had not even contended that the suit

is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. Sri.Dinesh Mathew

WPC No.17215/2005 2

J.Murikan, the learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the

judgments of this court in Skaria Joseph v. Eliyamma Joseph

(1996 (2) KLT 295) and in Girijadevi v. Hormis Thaliath (1983

KLT 732) to contend that the court has an obligation to implead all

necessary parties and also proper parties.

I do not think that the learned Munsiff can be blamed in this

case where the plaintiffs who are the master of the litigation submits

that the prospective additional defendants are not necessary parties

and that they are not desirous of any decree against them. I

sustain the impugned order observing however that the decree to be

passed shall not bind the prospective defendants whom the petitioner

wanted to implead. If the petitioner is having any genuine cause of

action against the prospective additional defendants, confirmation of

Ext.P3 by this court will not stand in the way of the petitioner

instituting suit against them upon such cause of action.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,

JUDGE.

Dpk