IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 33444 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.814/2007 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- P.GOPINATHAN, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.PARAMU, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT MULLATHARA VEEDU, MUNDAKKAL EAST, ERAVIPURAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. H.M.SUBAIR, AGED 71 YEARS, SUCHITHRA BUNGLOW, BEACH NORTH WARD, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. TASHRIFF MOHAMMED SANIL, AGED 8 YEARS, (MINOR) SUCHITHRA BUNGLOW, BEACH NORTH WARD, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. BHARATHAN, AGED 80 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN, DEVA MANDIRAM, MUNDAKKAL EAST, EARVIPURAM, KOLLAM. 4. A.DARAJAHAN, AGED 46 YEARS, DARSZAM VEEDU, EDAVATTATHU CHERRY, PERINADU P.O., KOLLAM. 5. RAZIA SUBAIR, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O.SUBAIR, SUCHITHRA BUNGLOW, BEACH NORTH WARD, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. .2/- ...2.... WPC.NO.33444/2009 O 6. SHAMMA SHAHUL, AGED 41 YEARS, D/O.RAZIA SUBAIR, PAQT MANZIL, IST FLOOR, TRA NO.77, MANAKKAD, KAMALESWARAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. MOHAMMED SUBAIR, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.SUBAIR, P.B.NO.3258, GENERAL CARGO, DUBAI, U.A.E. 8. VINOD MOHAMMED SUBAIR, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.SUBAIR, NAKEEL MARINE, OPERATIONS, P.B.NO.3258, DUBAI, U.A.E. 9. WAHIDA SANIL, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O.M.S.SANIL, NAKEEL P.J.S.C. P.B.NO.17777, DUBAI, U.A.E. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.33444 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of November 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) To call for the records leading to Ext.P4 and Ext.P5 orders passed by the Additional Munsiff Court, Kollam in O.S No.814/2007 and to quash the same. ii) To direct the Additional Munsiff Court, Kollam to allow I.A No.3800 of 2009 in O.S No.814/2007 and implead the petitioner as an additional defendant in the suit. iii) To direct the Additional Munsiff Court, Kollam to consider Ext.P3 application afresh in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, expeditiously, and within a time frame that this Hon'ble Court may consider reasonable. iv) Issue such other writ order or direction that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case. W.P.(C).No.33444 OF 2009 Page numbers 2. Petitioner is a third party to the suit O.S No.814 of 2007 on the file of Munsiff Court, Kollam. At the stage when the suit came up for trial, he moved an application for his impleadment as an additional defendant canvassing a case that he has got some interest over the subject matter involved in the suit. That application was dismissed for default vide Ext.P4 order. He moved an application for restoring his application. The learned Munsiff after considering the merit of that order dismissed it vide Ext.P5 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P5 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 hence it is dispensed with. From the submissions made and also perusing the exhibits produced with the writ petition, I find no impropriety or W.P.(C).No.33444 OF 2009 Page numbers illegality in Ext.P5 order passed by the learned Munsiff. It is seen, previously this court has disposed vide Ext.P6 judgment, a writ petition, filed by the 1st defendant seeking for adjournment of the trial by one month when it was included in the special list. That petition was disposed on 21/10/2009 by Ext.P6 judgment directing that defendant to approach the court below and seek appropriate orders on his application. From the facts and circumstances presented, I find entertaining of the application moved by the petitioner for impleadment as an additional defendant in the suit at this stage will only delay and prolong the trial. Plaintiff has not sought for any relief against the present petitioner. If at all he has got any right over the property, he has to work out his remedy in appropriate proceedings in the appropriate forum as provided by law. No interference with Ext.P5 order is called for. Petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv