IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 19TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3826 of 2010(O) ------------------------- OS.779/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- ROSY, W/O.LATE OLAPRATH GEORGE, PAPPINIVATTOM VILLAGE, MATHILAKOM DESOM, KODUNGALLUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.L.JOSEPH SMT.P.SAREENA GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SELVIN, S/O.OLAPRATH MANIYAMMAKKAL JOSE, PAPPINIVATTOM VILLAGE, MATHILAKOM DESOM, KODUNGALLUR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P. (C ) No. 3826 of 2010 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 8-2-2010 JUDGMENT The Writ Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 779 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kodungallur. The said suit is one for declaration of his title and for rectification of the title deeds with regard to the extent and survey number in respect of the plaint schedule property admeasuring 78 cents. O.S. No. 601 of 2008 is another suit pending before the same court filed by the respondent herein against the writ petitioner and others seeking recovery of possession with regard to the very same property. The respondent is not a party to O.S. 779 of 2008 filed by the petitioner. He therefore filed I.A. No. 1904 of 2009 under Order 1 rule 10 C.P.C. seeking his impleadment as an additional defendant in O.S. No. 779 of 2008. Eventhough the Writ Petitioner opposed the application, the court below as per order dated 11-11- 2009 allowed the said application. It is the said order which is assailed in this Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that the respondent had in an earlier a suit O.S. 779 of 1998 before the very same court got worsted and therefore the W.P. (C ) No. 3826 of 2010 -:2:- judgment and decree in that suit will operate as res judicata to the present suit and that this aspect of the matter was not appreciated by the court below while granting the impleadment. 3. The plea of res judicata is one which has to be raised in the suit for which also impleadment of the respondent may be necessary. That apart, when the respondent himself has filed a suit against the petitioner and others seeking recovery of possession, it is all the more necessary that he is permitted to be impleaded in the present suit O.S. No. 779 of 1998 filed by the petitioner so that in the event of the petitioner getting a decree in her favour the respondent cannot be heard to say that the decree is not binding on him since he is not a party to the suit. For that reason also the court below was right in impleading the petitioner. The plea of res judicata is still available to the petitioner to be raised in the suit. I, therefore, do not find any illegality in Ext.P5 order passed by the learned Munsiff. Clarifying this position, this Writ Petition is dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) W.P. (C ) No. 3826 of 2010 -:3:- ani.