IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 5926 of 2008(E) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IN IA.385/2006 IN AS.341/2003 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. NALLATHAMPI NELSON, AGED 54 YEARS, VELIYAKOTTU PATTAYA KARAKATTUVILA, PUTHUVAT PURAYIDAM, AYIRAYIL DESOM, KARODE VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. YOVEL ANIL KUMAR, AGED 34, VELLIYANKOTTU PATTA KARAKATTU, PUTHUVAL PURAYIDAM, AYIRAYIL DESOM, KARODE VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. YOVEL AJI KUMAR, AGED 29 YEARS, VELIYAKOTTU PATTAYA KARAKATTUVILA, PUTHUVAL PURAYIDAM, AYIRAYIL DESOM,KARODE VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN SRI.SURAJ.S RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. NALLATHAMPI NADAR VIJAYARAJ, AGED 51, PARAMBIL THOTTATHI PUTHEN VEEDU, AYIRAL DESOM, KARODE VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. 2. JOSEPH NADAR, DASAYYAN NADAR, AGED 56 YEARS, ENUASSERIVILAKATHU VEEDU, AYIRAYIL DESOM, KARODE VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. 3. YONA, S/O. CHARLES, AGED 51 YEARS, KALATHUCHANKUDY, IRUPPU VEEDU, AYIRAYIL DESOM, KARODE VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. 4. ROBINSON, S/O. NALLATHAMPI, AGED 51, VELIYAMKOTTUPU PATTAYA KARAKOTTUVILA, PUTHUVAL PURAYIDAM, AYIRAYIL DESOM, KARODE VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 5926 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Neyyattinkara, in IA 385/06 in AS 341/03. It is an application filed by the appellants to implead 102 other persons as additional respondents. It is submitted that in the light of the decision reported in Madhavi Amma v. Indusekharan [1992 (2) KLT 260] the court has the power to implead since it is a bona fide mistake. It is true that the court has always got the power. But the only dispute is regarding the bona fide nature. Even without impleading the plaintiff as a respondent, an appeal has been filed. A perusal of the original order would show that there are 136 respondents. Just impleading 4 persons as a respondent, an appeal is filed in the year 2002-03 and an application for impleading 102 other persons is filed in the year 2006. Under Order XXXXI Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code, no respondent shall be added under this rule after the expiry of the period of limitation for appeal, unless the court for reasons to be recorded allows that to be done on such terms as the court thinks fit. WPC NO 5926/08 2 2. So there cannot be any doubt that appeal against the proposed respondents is hopelessly barred by limitation then there must be valid reasons for the court to allow the same. I do not find any valid reason at all and the attempt of the appellants to institute an appeal even without making the plaintiff as a party has only to be deprecated and their attitude shows the lack of bona fide. I find the court below has considered the matter in the proper perspective and arrived at a decision. I do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC NO 5926/08 3 WPC NO 5926/08 4 WPC NO 5926/08 5 WPC NO 5926/08 6