IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 6429 of 2008(M) ------------------------- I.A.NO.17/2008 IN OS.74/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT, RANNI .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- ANIL KUMAR, S/O.LATE SADAN PILLAI, PULINILKUNNATHIL, CHETHACKAL VILLAGE AND MURI, RANNY THALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, USHA BHAVAN, CHERUKULANJI, VADASSERIKKARA VILLAGE. 2. RETHNAMMA, W/O.LATE SADAN PILLAI, PULINILKUNNATHIL, CHETHACKAL VILLAGE AND MURI, RANNY THALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1:- True copy of I.A.No.17/2008 in O.S.74/2004 of Munsiff Court, Ranny. Ext.P2:- True copy of the Order dated 28.1.2008 I.A.No.17/2008 in O.S.74/04 of the Munsiff Court /true copy/ P.S to Judge M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== W.P.(C) NO.6429 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 26th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the first defendant and first respondent the plaintiff in O.S.74/2004 on the file of Munsiff Court, Ranny. Suit was filed for recovery of possession of plaint schedule property. Petitioner along with second defendant filed I.A.17/2008 to implead second respondent herein as an additional defendant. Under Ext.P2 order, petition was dismissed by the learned Munsiff. It is challenged in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned counsel appearing for first respondent were heard. 3. First respondent is the plaintiff. He instituted the suit seeking recovery of possession of plaint schedule property from petitioner and second defendant. Defendants are not entitled to W.P.(C)6429/2008 2 implead any other party in the suit even if it is their own mother based on the contentions raised in the written statement against the wishes of the plaintiff so long as plaintiff does not seek any relief as against the persons sought to be impleaded. In such circumstance, learned Munsiff rightly dismissed the application. I do not find any reason to interfere with that order. 4. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that there is a finding in Ext.P2 order against petitioner's mother and it may operate against the mother who was not impleaded in the suit. When Ext,.P2 order is passed without the mother in the party array, whatever observations are there in Ext.P2 they will not be binding on the mother. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006