IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2008 / 13TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19368 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ WING COMMANDER.A.ABRAHAM, FLAT NO.2B, NEDUNGADAN RESIDENCY CHITOOR ROAD, KOCHI-682 018, PRESIDENT VILAS APARTMENTS FLAT OWNERS' ASSOCIATION CIVIL LINE ROAD, PADAMUGHAL, KOCHI-682021. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. COMMANDER BENNY M.ANTONY, FLEET NAVIGATING OFFICER, C/O.FLEET MAIL OFFICE, MUMBAI-400 001-REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR.M.V.ANTONY, S/O.M.K.VARUTHUNNY. 2. M/S.VILAS CONSTRUCTIONS, PUSHPANJALI, I.M.PYLEE ROAD, VYTTILA, COCHI-682 019-REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE SHRI.T.P.MURALEEDHARAN. 3. MRS.SUKUMARI MURALIDHARAN, PARTNER, M/S.VILAS CONSTRUCTIONS, PUSHPANJALI, I.M.PYLEE ROAD, VYTTILA, KOCHI-682 019. 4. MUHAMMED, ALI,S/O.HAMSA, AMBALATHIVEETTIL, P.O.ANGADI, (VIA)KUMARANELLOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. UNNIAN HAJI, S/O.ALAVI HAJI AL-AKBAR WHITE HOUSE, CHARAKODE P.O, VALLAPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 6. INDUSIND BANK, M.G.ROAD, COCHIN-682035- REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 7. THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. S.P. CHALY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 19368 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 4th July, 2008. J U D G M E N T Adv. Sri. S.P. Chaly appears for the 1st respondent and opposes the prayers in the writ petition. In view of the fact that the 1st respondent is the person who is really affected by the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the other respondents. 2. The petitioner challenges the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing an application filed by the petitioner to implead him in the proceedings in E.P.No. 5/2007 in O.P.No. 67/2000. The petitioner was not a party to the O.P. before the Commission. However, in the E.P., according to the petitioner, money in the hands of a garnishee to which the petitioner and others were also entitled to, was sought to be recovered by the 1st respondent in excess of his entitlement. The contention of the petitioner is that the amount at the hands of the garnishee is supposed to be distributed proportionately to all the allottees of flats. If the entire decree amount is adjusted from the amount with the garnishee, the amounts due to other allottees of flats would be considerably reduced and the 1st respondent would get an undue advantage. Therefore, according to the petitioner, he is a necessary party to the E.P in so far as money due to him and other allottees is also being proceeded against for payment to the 1st respondent. However, his application for impleading in the E.P has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner is a stranger to the proceedings . 3. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the 1st respondent also. 4. I am of opinion that in the circumstances stated above, the petitioner is a necessary party in the E.P although the petitioner was not a party in the O.P, in which the decree has been passed, which is W.P.C. No. 19368/2008 -: 2 :- sought to be executed in the E.P. Therefore, Ext. P6 order of the 7th respondent is quashed. It is directed that the petitioner be impleaded in the E.P and the E.P be proceeded with after hearing the petitioner also. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/