IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2009 / 17TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 15719 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.121/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKUDY .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ ANTO THOMAS KANICHAI, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. THOMAS, KANICHAI HOUSE, VYNTHALA, KALLUR VADAKKUMMURI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN, MR.R.RAJESH (VARKALA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. SHAJI, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. SEKHARAN, THAYVALLIYIL HOUSE, VYNTHALA KALLUR VADAKKUMMURI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. PRADEEP, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. KUMARAN, URUNDOLIL HOUSE, ASHTAMICHIRA, VYNTHALA KALLUR VADAKKUMMURI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,THRISSUR. 4. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. 5. THE GEOLOGIST, THE DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, THRISSUR. 6. VILLAGE OFFICER, KALLUR VADAKKUMMURY, KATHIKUDAM. 7. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KADUKUTTY, KALLUR VADAKKUMMURI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.15719 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: i) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction calling for the entire records in pursuant of Ext.P4, dismissal order passed by the Honourable Munsiff's Court, Chalakkudy, in I.A.No.444 (a)/2009 in O.S.No.121/2009 scrutinize and quash the same. ii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Honourable Munsiff Court, Chalakkudy to declare that petitioner is a necessary party in the proceedings of O.S.No.121/2009 and implead the petitioner as additional defendant. iii) to grant any other reliefs or directions which are deemed fit and proper to meet the ends of justice. iv) to allow this writ petition (c) with costs. 2. Petitioner is stated to be the managing partner of a tile factory and an office bearer of All Kerala Tile Manufacturers Federation, Trissur. He moved an application WPC.15719/09 2 to get himself impleaded as an additional defendant in O.S.No.121/2009 filed by respondents 1 and 2 for a prohibitory injunction to restrain the State, its officers and others impleaded as defendants in that suit from unauthorised removal of soil from the plaint property, without filling up the ditches that had been formed by removal of soil from those properties. The application moved by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 (2) of CPC was objected to by the plaintiffs, and after hearing both sides, the learned Munsiff dismissed that application. Ext.P4 is the copy of that order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Notice was ordered to the respondents. Govt. Pleader has taken notice for respondents 3 to 7. Though notice is served, respondents 1 and 2, the plaintiffs before the court below have not entered appearance. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Govt. Pleader. Petitioner is a necessary party and he will be seriously affected if any decree is passed as prayed for by the plaintiffs WPC.15719/09 3 in the suit, is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner and several tile factory owners are depending upon the raw material of clay for running their business, and hence, any prohibitory injunction passed in the suit would have disastrous effect in running their factories, and so much so, he is a necessary party and if not, atleast a proper party in the suit, and his application ought have been allowed by the court below, according to his counsel. 4. Petitioner has filed an application in his individual capacity though he claims to be the managing partner of a firm, a tile factory. The question to be considered is whether his impleadment in the suit filed by the 1st and 2nd respondents seeking reliefs against the defendants already impleaded in that suit is warranted. True, the petitioner may be affected by the decree of injunction if allowed in the suit as claimed by the plaintiffs. But it has to be noted that the relief sought for is only against unauthorised and illegal removal of the soil from the plaint properties. Nobody could object to that relief because, necessarily, a permit or licence, as contemplated by the rules, is required for removal of soil for commercial WPC.15719/09 4 purposes. Further more, it is evident from the claim of the petitioner that his interest is commercial, that is, in connection with the running of his business of a tile factory. That is also to be taken into account whether he can come and get himself impleaded in the suit, which is filed by another seeking relief against the State and its public officers. Plaintiff is the master of the suit and he should be given the freedom to select as to from whom the reliefs are to be claimed unless it is shown that the reliefs claimed so by the plaintiffs cannot be granted without the presence of the petitioner in the party array. Petitioner has no right to claim that he should be impleaded as an additional defendant in the suit. I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned Magistrate turning down the request of the petitioner for impleadment as an additional defendant. Writ petition is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp