IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2010 / 21ST SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23122 of 2010(O) -------------------------- IA NO.711/2010 IN OS.29/2009 of SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SREEDHAR.K.KOTTARAM ALIAS K.K.SREEDHARAN AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. KUMARAMANGALAM.P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.DIPU JAMES RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SUBASH SOMAN, S/O. SOMAN, AGED 30 YEARS ROHINI HOUSE, PALLICKAL MURI, MYLAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK, PIN. ADV. SRI.CHERIAN GEE VARGHESE SRI.P.HARIDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.23122 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2010. JUDGMENT This Writ Petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.29 of 2009 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Thiruvalla challenging Ext.P5, order impleading respondent as additional defendant No.10. 2. Petitioner has sued a private limited company and its directors for recovery of money allegedly due to him. In the course of the suit certain immovable properties belonging to the company were placed under attachment. Learned counsel for petitioner states that the attachment was later made absolute. In the meantime claiming to be a purchaser of major shares of the said company, respondent moved I.A.No.711 of 2010 to implead him as a defendant in the suit. That application was opposed by petitioner. But learned Sub Judge vide Ext.P5, order rejected the objection and allowed the application. Respondent now stands impleaded as additional defendant No.10 in the suit. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that in so far as respondent is a pendente lite purchaser of the property of defendant No.1, (private limited company) he should not have been encouraged by impleadment in the suit and that petitioner is not seeking any relief against respondent personally and that the latter has only commercial interest in defendant No.1, company. Learned counsel for respondent in response contends that respondent has filed WP(C) No.23122/2010 2 I.A.No.711 of 2010 in his capacity as managing director of defendant No.1, company. Learned counsel states that on his purchasing major shares of the company defendant Nos.2 to 9 who were directors of the company have resigned from that post and now the managing director of defendant No.1, company is the respondent and none else. It is contended that the director who represented defendant No.1, company has also resigned since the suit. Certain documents are produced in the Writ Petition in support of contention raised by the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for respondent would say that impleadment of respondent is only in his capacity as managing director of defendant No.1, company. I must bear in mind that what is purchased by respondent pendente lite is not immovable properties of defendant No.1, (company) which were placed under attachment but only its shares. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am persuaded to think that respondent can be permitted to be impleaded in his capacity as managing director of defendant No.1. Hence it is directed that impleadment of petitioner as additional defendant No.10 will only be in his capacity as managing director of defendant No.1, company. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for respondent that respondent is ready to furnish security for the plaint claim and intends to seek lifting of attachment over immovable properties of defendant No.1, company. I make it clear that it will be open to respondent/additional defendant No.10 to move appropriate application in the court below as provided under law with notice to WP(C) No.23122/2010 3 the petitioner and if any such application is preferred, court below shall after hearing counsel on both sides pass appropriate orders on such application as expeditiously as possible. It will also be open to the petitioner to request learned Sub Judge to expedite disposal of the suit if pre-trial steps are over. Writ Petition is closed as above. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks