IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2009 / 23RD ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 13867 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- OS.3/2009 of MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, SULTHAN BATHERY .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- VINODINI GOVINDAN, AGED 43, W/O. GOVINDAN, CHAKKALA VEEDU, RESIDING AT PAZHERI, KUPPADI P.O., KUPPADY AMSOM, DESOM. BY ADV. MR.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) MR.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. LOLITHA, CHAIR PERSON CDS SULTHAN BATHERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, D/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, KALAKKANACHIRA HOUSE, ARMAD, KUPPADI VILLAGE, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DIST. 2. RETURNING OFFICER, KUDUMBASREE MISSION, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. RETURNING OFFICER, SULTHAN BATHERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MALUKUTTY, W/O. SIVARAMAN, WOMEN WELFARE OFFICER, SULTHAN BATHERY BLOCK, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK. 4. DISTRICT CORDINATOR, KUDUMBASREE MISSION, KALPETTA, WAYANAD. 5. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KUDUMBASREE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.K.BABU THOMAS R2 TO R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.13867 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) To call for the records leading to Ext.P8 order and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing Munsiff Magistrate Court, Sulthan Bathery to implead the petitioner as 6th defendant in Ext.P1 suit and 6th respondent in I.A 7/09. iii) To direct the Munsiff Magistrate Court, Sulthan Bathery by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ W.P.(C).No.13867 OF 2009 2 order or direction to hear and dispose of I.A 7/09 afresh as expeditiously as possible after giving an opportunity to file his objections to I.A 7/09 in O.S 3/09. iv) To grant such other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioner in the writ petition moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure to implead her as an additional defendant in a suit instituted by the first respondent for a declaration that the order passed by the second respondent annulling the election held to the administrative committee of the Community Development Society of Sulthan Bathery Grama Panchayat,for the year 2008-2009, which is regulated by Kudumbasree Community Development W.P.(C).No.13867 OF 2009 3 Society Conduct of Election Rules, 2008, herein after referred to as the 'Rules' is null and void and consequential reliefs. Impleadment of the petitioner as a codefendant in the suit was stoutly resisted by the first respondent/plaintiff filing objections that she is not a necessary or a proper party for adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. The learned Munsiff after hearing both sides dismissed the application. Ext.P8 is the copy of that order. Impeaching the propriety and correctness of Ext.P8 order, petitioner has filed this petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. Petitioner was a candidate in the election to the administrative committee of the Area Development Society having jurisdiction over the Ayalkoottam in W.P.(C).No.13867 OF 2009 4 which she is a member. Though she secured majority votes to be elected as a member of the administrative committee of the Area Development Society, she was excluded. She filed a petition challenging her exclusion before the authority constituted under the 'Rules'. She moved a petition before the authorities that till the disputes raised by her regarding her entitlement to be a member of the administrative committee of the Area Development Society is resolved the election to the office bearers of the Community Development Society has to be keep in abeyance. However, the election process for the Community Development Society continued and ultimately the first respondent was declared as the Chairperson. Consequent to the election, another complaint was also filed by the defeated candidate questioning the election to the office bearers of the administrative committee of the Community W.P.(C).No.13867 OF 2009 5 Development Society. After conducting an enquiry, which according to the first respondent was proceeded without notice to her, the authority covered by the Rules, passed an order setting aside the election of the administrative committee of the Community Development Society. Impeaching the correctness of that decision the first respondent instituted the above suit (copy of the plaint is produced as Ext.P1), seeking a declaration that the order passed annulling the election to the Community Development Society is void and for consequential reliefs. In that suit the petitioner moved an application for impleadment as a codefendant contending that the proceedings leading to the annulment of the election of the Community Development Society was based on her complaint and she is also interested in the adjudication of the disputes involved in this suit. As pointed out earlier the first respondent /plaintiff in the suit W.P.(C).No.13867 OF 2009 6 objected to the impleadment, and the learned Munsiff after hearing both parties dismissed that application. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the nature of the facts and circumstances involved in the case that she is at least a proper party and her presence in the suit is essential for a proper and fair adjudication of the issues involved in the case. It is also submitted that after moving the suit, when the plaintiff filed an application for interim injunction, the Government pleader who appeared for the defendants represented that he required time to go through the files and till then he had no objection in passing an order of status quo in the suit, that is, allowing the continuance of the plaintiff and other office bearers in the W.P.(C).No.13867 OF 2009 7 administrative committee in management of the Community Development Society. That state of affairs still continues and it is so because of the collusion between the defendants and the plaintiff, which according to the counsel, is on account of political compulsion. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff in the suit strongly emphasizing that the plaintiff is the master of the suit and dominus litus, and as against whom she should seek relief is within the competence of the plaintiff and no other party can be impleaded unless his direct interest in the issues arising for adjudication is established. Contending that the petitioner has no competency to get herself impleaded in the suit, and even her election to Area Development Society by virtue of Ext.P3 order is not in consonance with the Rules, it is argued that even if she is admitted to be a member of the Area Development Society there is not W.P.(C).No.13867 OF 2009 8 even a remote possibility of her name being included as a member of the administrative committee of the Community Development Society from which the office bearers of that committee have to be selected by the Rules. At any rate, according to the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the petitioner could not be considered as a necessary party or proper party as contemplated by Order 1 Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure enabling her to be impleaded as a codefendant in the suit. The learned counsel relied on 'P.V George v Bank of Madurai Ltd.'(1986 KLT 406) and 'Ramesh Hirachand Kundammal v Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others' (1992(2) Supreme Court Cases 524) to contend that a party seeking impleadment as an additional defendant must show either direct or legal interest and not commercial interest. The petitioner has not shown any direct or legal interest to get herself impleaded as a W.P.(C).No.13867 OF 2009 9 party is the submission of the counsel. So much so, it is submitted that no interference with Ext.P8 order of the court below is called for exercising the visitorial jurisdiction vested with this court. 5. Perusing Ext.P8 order I find the argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the petitioner has no direct or legal interest in the subject matter involved, and the issues arising for adjudication in the suit, and as such she is not entitled to be made an additional defendant in the suit cannot be accepted. I do not wish to express any view on the controversy involved in the suit, nor refer to the claim canvassed by the plaintiff which is to be adjudicated by the court in the trial of the suit. But all the same, the reasoning of the court below W.P.(C).No.13867 OF 2009 10 which is reiterated and emphasised in the the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that a party cannot be impleaded to a suit unless he / she shows direct or legal interest cannot have universal application since that Rule is applicable only where right to property is involved. In other cases if the court finds that the presence of the party who seeks impleadment is essential or may be advantageous to the court for fair and proper disposal of the suit even if his / her interest is not shown to be direct or legal can be implead as a codefendant in the suit. The principles governing the matters to be considered in such cases are succintly stated by the apex court in Ramesh Hirachand undammal v Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others' (1992(2) Supreme Court Cases 524). W.P.(C).No.13867 OF 2009 11 6. Petitioner is a member of the Ayalkoottam coming under Community Development Society and it cannot be stated that she has no interest in that society. Further more, her election as an official member of the Area Development Society from which members are to be selected for constituting the Community Development Society as per the Rules is also borne out by Ext.P3 order. Whatever be the challenge or merit of that order, it is further shown that the annulment of the election to the administrative committee to Community Development Society was also based on a complaint given by the petitioner. Lastly, the circumstances projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Government pleader who appeared for the defendants had no objection in ordering status quo could not be ignored in examining whether the presence of the petitioner as an additional party in the suit is required to enable the court to resolve the issues W.P.(C).No.13867 OF 2009 12 in accordance with law. Taking into account all these aspects, but without adverting to the merits of the claims raised by the rival parties, I find, the petitioner has to be impleaded as a codefendant in the suit and the I.A. Setting aside Ext.P8 order I direct the court below to implead the petitioner as a codefendant in the suit and an additional counter petitioner in the I.A, and proceed with the case in accordance with law. Petition is disposed as above. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv