IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3273 of 2009(M) ------------------------- OS.801/2008 of II ADDL.M.C.,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M.CELINE, W/O.WILSON LAZAR,AGED 57 YRS, HOUSE NO.X/130,AVIKUZHY VEEDU, OLATHANNI, NEYYATTINKARA.P.O. 2. S.SHEEJA, W/O.DR.JAGAN,AGED 30 YRS, HOUSE NO.X/130,AVIKUZHY VEEDU, OLATHANNI, NEYYATTINKARA.P.O. 3. A.P.AJITH,S/O.ALOCIOS,AGED 35 YRS, H.NO.VII/338,MEENACHIRA ROADARIKATHUVEEDU, PULAYARKONAM, DALUMUGHAM.P.O, NEYYATTINKARA. 4. W.YESUDASAN, S/O.WILLISON, AGED 55 YRS, H.NO.IX/193,AVIKUZHY VEEDU, OLATHAPPI, NEYYATTINKARA.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MARY MATHA EDUCATIOAN SOCIETY,REG.NO.T. 284/97,PALIYODE, DALUMUGHAM.P.O,NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. R.MURUGAN, CHAIRMAN,MARY MATHA EDUCATION SOCIETY,REG.NO.T.284/97,PALIYODE, DALUMUGHAM.PO, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. 3. WILSON LAZAR,S/O.LAZAR NADAR,HOUSE NO. X/130,AVIKUZHY VEEDU, OLATHANNI. 4. JOSE WILSON,S/O.WILSON,HOUSE NO.X/130, AVIKUZHY VEEDU, OLATHANNI. WPC 3273/09 5. SHANTHI, W/O.RAJENDRAN,.NO,XXXI/III, AVIKUZHY VEEDU,M OLATHANNI. 6. DHARMARAJ,S/O.CHRISTUDAS,CRIST ILLAM, KEEZHKOLLA DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE. 7. PUSHPAM, W/O.DHARMARAJ,CRIST ILLAM, KEEZHKOLLA DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY FOR R6,7 SRI.R.S.KALKURA FOR R1 & R2 SRI.M.S.KALESH FOR R1 & R2 SRI.HARISH GOPINATH FOR R1 & R2 SRI.V.VINAY MENON FOR R1 & R2 SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX(WPC 3273/09) PETITIONERS' EXTS.: EXT.P1: PHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.801/08 DATED 18.9.08 FILED BY THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. EXT.P2: PHOTOCOPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S.NO.801/08 FILED BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. EXT.P3: PHOTOCOPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S.NO.801/08 FILED BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. EXT.P4: PHOTOCOPY OF THE I.A.NO.5709/08 IN O.S.NO.801/08 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. EXT.P5: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.11.08 IN I.A.NO.5233/08 IN O.S.NO.801/08 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. EXT.P6: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.11.08 IN I.A.NO.5709 IN O.S.NO.801/08 OF THE 1ST ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. EXT.P7: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER I.A.NO.690/08 IN O.S.NO.93/08 OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. RESPONDENTS EXTS.(RESPONDENTS 6 AND 7): EXT.R6(a): TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT DATED 15.1.2002. S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.3273 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 25th June, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed by defendants 4 to 7 in O.S.No.801/08 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara challenging the impleadment of respondents 6 and 7 as additional defendants in the above suit, which is one for perpetual prohibitory injunction. The first respondent is a society registered under Act 12 of 1955 and the second respondent is its Chairman. Suit was instituted by the above respondents as plaintiffs seeking a decree of prohibitory injunction against the petitioners and respondents 3 to 5, impleading them as defendants in the suit. Some of the defendants had entered into an agreement to form a partnership with respondents 6 and 7, and the terms of that agreement also contemplated sharing of the profits and involving them in the management of an educational institution of the first respondent-society was the case advanced by the respondents 6 and 7 to get themselves impleaded as additional defendants in the suit. Though the impleadment was objected to by the plaintiffs as well as the other defendants, the learned Munsiff allowed that application. Ext.P6 is the copy of the order passed by the learned Munsiff. Propriety and correctness of that order is impeached in this Writ Petition by the petitioners, who are some of the W.P.C.No.3273/09 - 2 - defendants in the suit. 2. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, the plaintiffs in the suit, submits that the impleadment allowed was not proper and the presence of these defendants is unnecessary for the relief claimed by them which is confined to the defendants already proceeded in the suit. Having regard to the nature of the relief sought for in the suit, only for a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction as against the defendants already impleaded in the suit, I find the court below was not correct in allowing the application moved by respondents 6 and 7 for impleading them as additional defendants in the suit. If at all, respondents 6 and 7 have any right over the properties under the control of the first respondent-society on the basis of any agreement, if any, with the respondents 3 to 5, members of the governing body, and the first respondent-society, they have to take recourse to appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum for getting the reliefs which they are entitled to. Ext.P6 order allowing impleadment of respondents 6 and 7 as additional defendants in the suit cannot be sustained. Ext.P6 order is set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE W.P.C.No.3273/09 - 3 -