IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2009 / 1ST ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 26588 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25/07/2009 IN IA. 721 /2009 IN OS.36/2008 of SUB COURT, HOSDRUG .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- PEEKKARA VEETTIL KUNHIRAMAN, S/O.P.V.AMBU, BANGALAM, PEROLE VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THEKKEVEETTIL NARAYANAN, S/O.MANI AMMA, ANKAKALARI, NILESHWAR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. THEKKEVEETTIL LAKSHMI, D/O.LAKSHMI, CHALAKAT, MEDIKAI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. THEKKEVEETTIL CHIRUTHYI, D/O.LAKSHMI, ANKAKALARI, NILESHWAR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, PEROLE, NILESHWAR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.26588 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following reliefs: i. to set aside/quash Ext.P4 ii. to allow the prayer sought for in Ext.P2. 2. Petitioner had filed an application under Order I Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead him as an additional defendant in Ext.P1 suit filed by the 1st respondent seeking a decree of damages and also mandatory injunction against the defendants therein. In respect of the property covered by the suit, 85 cents of land, petitioner had filed an appeal as against the assignment granted in favour of the 1st respondent, the plaintiff in the above suit, and that appeal WPC.26588/09 2 is pending before the appellate authority, is the ground canvassed seeking impleadment of the petitioner as an additional party in Ext.P1 suit. The learned Sub Judge, after hearing both sides, dismissed that application vide Ext.P4 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. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary, and, hence, it is dispensed with. Ext.P1 suit is filed by the 1st respondent seeking a decree for damages as against the 1st and 2nd respondents, and a decree of mandatory injunction against the defendants 3 to 5 directing them to receive revenue charges from him over the property. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is only interested with the second relief sought against by the plaintiff/1st respondent with respect to the mandatory injunction against the revenue officials, defendants 3 to 5 in the suit. If a decree of mandatory injunction is WPC.26588/09 3 granted as sought for by the plaintiff in the suit, without hearing the petitioner, it would cause him injury and also affect the merit of the appeal canvassed by him before the appellate authority, is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. I do not find any merit in the submission. The proceedings pending before the appellate authority is distinct from the proceedings covered by Ext.P1 suit before the court, and petitioner not being a party to the suit, is not bound by the decree passed in the suit. Whether the 1st respondent/plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction, as against the revenue officials, depends on his legal rights, and, even if the petitioner has challenged the right of the first respondent over the property by way of an appeal before the appellate authority, that would not confer on the petitioner any right to get himself impleaded in Ext.P1 suit to resist the decree applied for by the plaintiff/1st respondent. There is no merit in the writ petition, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp WPC.26588/09 4