IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP(C).No. 475 of 2010(O) ------------------------ IA NO.574/2008 IN OS.79/2006 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: -------------------------------------------------------- K.P.FRANCIS, AGED 45 YEARS, SON OF LATE P.T.PAULOSE, 43/222, SRM ROAD, COCHIN-18. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.SATHISH NINAN SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MR.NANDAUMARAN, AGED 67 YEARS, SON OF LATE KALYANIKUTTY AMMA THEKKE MANNATH, KALYAN BAGH, HOUSE NO.39/1559, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 016. 2. MANNATH CONSTRUCTIONS, HOUSE NO.39/1559 CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 016. 3. GOPINATHAN, AGED 70 YEARS, SON OF KALYANIKUTTY AMMA, THEKKE MANNATH, KALYAN BAGH, HOUSE NO.39/1559, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 016. ADV. SRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER FOR R1 SRI.B.RAGHUNANDANAN FOR R1 SMT.A.SREEKALA (VAIKOM) FOR R1 SRI.JOJI THOMAS FOR R1 SRI.SREEJITH WARRIER FOR R1 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C) NO.475/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 79/2006 OF SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM EXT.P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR IMPLEADING EXT.P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN DATED 2.8.2010 EXT.P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.9.2010 IN IA NO.574/2008IN OS 79/2006 OF SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM //TRUE COPY// THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.475 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2010. JUDGMENT Plaintiff in O.S.No.79 of 2006 of the court of learned Additional Sub Judge-I, Ernakulam is the petitioner before me challenging Ext.P4, order dated September 23, 2010 on I.A.No.574 of 2008 impleading respondent No.1 herein as additional defendant in the suit. Petitioner instituted suit for money paid on the basis of a construction-cum-sale agreement (as petitioner would say) between himself and respondent Nos.2 and 3, a partnership firm and its managing partner. According to the petitioner, respondent Nos.2 and 3 failed to complete construction work and hence petitioner is entitled to get refund of the amount claimed in the plaint together with damages. Respondent No.1 filed I.A.No.574 of 2008 seeking his impleadment under I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) claiming that he is interested in the suit property. That application, against objection of petitioner was allowed by the impugned order. It is contended by learned counsel that the order is bad in law and that no where it is stated in what way respondent No.1 is interested in the suit property or in the plaint claim. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 contends that the suit property belonged to the family of respondent No.1 and that he has a share in the said property. It is also contended by learned counsel that respondent No.1 was a one time partner of respondent No.2. OP(C) No.475/2010 2 2. Though not produced, learned counsel for petitioner has given to me a copy of agreement dated 08.04.2004 referred to in the plaint. In page No.2 of that agreement, there is reference to the property in respect of which the construction-cum- sale agreement was allegedly executed as belonging to the persons referred to therein who include respondent No.1. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, petitioner is entitled to a statutory charge on the property for the amount claimed. If that be so and in the light of what is revealed from the agreement that respondent No.1 is also having interest in the property in respect of which the agreement is allegedly executed he can be said to be a necessary or atleast a proper party for adjudication of the dispute. In that view there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks