IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4776 of 2009(R) ------------------------- OS.454/2008 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.PARAMESWARA KURUP, NADACKAL FROM EDACKANNATHU PALACKAL, MARARIKULAM NORTH MURI, MARARIKULAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------- 1. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, CHERTHALA 2. TALUK SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICE, CHERTHALA. 3. KRALA STATE, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 4. THANKAMMA, W/O.GOPALAN, PADATHUCHIRA HOUSE, PERUMTHURUTHU MURI, KANJIKKUZHI VILLAGE. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA THANKAPPAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.4776 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.454/08 on the file of the court of the Additional Munsiff Cherthala, challenges Ext.P5 order dated 6th October 2008 in I.A.No.2652/08 by which the court below allowed the application filed by the fourth respondent to get herself impleaded as additional defendant in the suit. The suit was filed by the petitioner for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from measuring out the plaint schedule property based on re-survey records or from fixing boundary stones. There is also a prayer for injunction directing the defendants from keeping in abeyance the proceedings initiated by them, till the complaint submitted by the plaintiff is disposed of. 2. The fourth respondent filed the application for impleading alleging that she is aggrieved by the order of injunction granted by the court and that she is a necessary party to the suit. The court below considered the facts and WPC No.4776/2009 2 circumstances of the case and the contentions put forward by the fourth respondent and held that for a complete and proper adjudication of the suit, it is necessary to implead the fourth respondent. On the basis of the materials produced by the fourth respondent, she is an affected party. To avoid the multiplicity of the suits, the court below thought that it is necessary to implead the fourth respondent. No prejudice would be caused to the petitioner by impleading the fourth respondent. It cannot be said that the order passed by the court below is illegal, improper or without jurisdiction. The Writ Petition lacks merits and it is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl