IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2011 / 10TH JYAISHTA 1933 OP(C).No. 691 of 2010(O) AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.NO. 4329/2010 IN OS.NO.147/2009 OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, IRINJALAKUDA PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF ---------------------------------------- KRISHNANKUTTY,S/O.ELANTHOLY LATE VELU, MADATHIKKARA ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA DESOM, PULLUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT RESPONDENTS: DEFENDANTS ------------------------- 1. SATHYAN,AGED 53,S/O.ELANTHOLY VEETTIL LATE MADHAVAN, PULLUR VILLAGE AND DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK 680 683. 2. VIJAYAN AGED 51,S/O.ELANTHOLY VEETTIL LATE MADHAVAN, PULLUR VILLAGE AND DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK 680 683. 3. SAVITHRI,AGED 50,D/O.ELANTHOLY VEETTIL LATE MADHAVAN,PULLUR VILLAGE AND DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK 680 683. 4. SUGATHAN,AGED 48,S/O.ELANTHOLY VEETTIL LATE MADHAVAN,PULLUR VILLAGE AND DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK 680 683. 5. BABU,AGED 46,S/O.ELANTHOLY VEETTIL LATE MADHAVAN,PULLUR VILLAGE AND DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK 680 683. 6. SATHEESAN,AGED 44,S/O.ELANTHOLY VEETTIL LATE MADHAVAN,PULLUR VILLAGE AND DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK 680 683. 7. USHA,AGED 42,D/O.ELANTHOLY VEETTIL LATE MADHAVAN,PULLUR VILLAGE AND DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK 680 683. 8. AJITH,AGED 40,S/O.ELANTHOLY VEETTIL LATE MADHAVAN,PULLUR VILLAGE AND DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK 680 683. 9. PRADEEP,AGED 38,S/O.ELANTHOLY VEETTIL LATE MADHAVAN,PULLUR VILLAGE AND DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK 680 683. 10. SUMA,AGED 36,D/O.ELANTHOLY VEETTIL LATE MADHAVAN,PULLUR VILLAGE AND DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK 680 683. 11. RAVEENDRANADHAN,AGED 58, S/O.PULIKKAL KOCHURAMAN, PULLUR VILLAGE AND DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK 680 683. 12. DEVAYANI,W/O.LATE MADHAVAN, ELANTHOLY VEETTIL,PULLUR VILLAGE AND DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK 680 683. R1 & R3 TO R10 BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.147 OF 2009 DATED 28.1.2009. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANTS 1, 3 TO 7, 9 AND 10 DATD 7.11.2009. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT NO.11 DATED 8.4.2009. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.4329 OF 2010 DATED 2.11.2010. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.4330/2010 DATED 3.11.2010. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.4329 OF 2010 DATED 3.11.2010. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.4330/2010 DATED 3.11.2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ O.P.(C). NO. 691 OF 2010 O ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 31st day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner filed O.S.No.147 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Principal Munsiff , Irinjalakuda, for partition claiming one-half share in the plaint schedule property. According to the plaintiff, the property belonged to Velu and after his death, the property devolved on the plaintiff and the deceased Madhavan, the predecessor-in- interest of defendants 1 to 10. The defendants, in their written statement, contended that the plaintiff is not the son of Velu and that he has no right in the property. They also contended that Madhavan executed a Will in favour of the 9th defendant with a right of enjoyment to Devayani, mother of defendants 1 to 10. The defendants contended that as Devayani was not made a party to the suit, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 2. It would appear that the issue regarding non-joinder of necessary party was raised and the case was posted for steps. It would also appear that the plaintiff stated that no steps are O.P.(C) NO.691 OF 2010 :: 2 :: necessary. Later, the suit was listed for trial. On the date on which the suit was listed for trial, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.4329 of 2010 for impleading Devayani as additional 12th defendant. The court below dismissed the application as per Ext.P6 order dated 3.11.2010, which is under challenge in this Original Petition. 3. Going by the written statement of the contesting defendants, Devayani is a necessary party. It is true that there was delay on the part of the plaintiff to file an application for impleading Devayani as an additional defendant. It is also true that the plaintiff stated that he does not want to take any steps in the matter. The plaintiff filed the application only when the case was listed for trial. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that for a complete and final adjudication of the disputes between the parties, presence of all the proper and necessary parties on the party array would be ideal for both parties. It would avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The delay on the part of the plaintiff can be compensated in terms of costs. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the application for impleading can be allowed on condition O.P.(C) NO.691 OF 2010 :: 3 :: that the plaintiff shall pay `1,000/- as costs to the contesting defendants. For the aforesaid reasons, the Original Petition is allowed, Ext.P6 order dated 3.11.2010 is set aside and I.A.No.4329 of 2010 is allowed on condition that the petitioner/plaintiff shall pay a sum of `1,000/- as costs to the contesting defendants within a period of one month. If the petitioner fails to pay the costs within the time stipulated, Ext.P6 order shall remain in force. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/