IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No.3542 of 2009(V) --------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 4/09 IN OS.103/2006 of MUNI-MAGI.COURT,PATTAMBI .................... PETITIONERS: ----------------- 1. UNNEERI, S/O.IRUMBENCHERY PARANGODAN, KOTHA, RESIDING AT ANGADI AMSOM, THOZHUKKARA DESOM IN OTTAPALAM TALUK. 2. BHASKARAN, S/O.IRUMBENCHERY PARANGODAN, KOTHA,RESIDING AT ANGADI AMSOM, THOZHUKKARA DESOM IN OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. CHANDRAN, S/O.PUTHANPURAYIL MADHAVAN, ANGADI AMSOM,THOZHUKKARA DESOM IN OTTAPALAM TALUK 2. MOHANAN, S/O.PUTHANPURAYIL MADHAVAN, ANGADI AMSOM, THOZHUKKARA DESOM, IN OTTAPALAM TALUK. 3. RAMAN,S/O.KARUTHEDATHPADI CHATHA, R/AT -DO- 4. THAMI H/O.KARUTHEDATHPADI CHERICHI, R/AT -DO-. 5. MANU.S/O.CHARUPADIKKAL KUNHAVARAN,R/AT -DO-. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.3542 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.103/06 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Pattambi. What is assailed in this Writ Petition is Ext.P3 order passed by the court below on Ext.P1 application dismissing the said application seeking for impleadment of the Pattithara Panchayath as additional sixth defendant. 2. It is urged by the counsel for the petitioners that the reason why the court below has dismissed Ext.P1 petition vide Ext.P3 order is that notice contemplated under Section 249 of the Panchayath Raj Act is not served on the Pattithara Grama Panchayath and submits that Section 249 of the Panchayath Raj Act applies only in the event of any relief being asked for against the Panchayath and in W. P. C. No.3542 of 2009 -2- the instant case no relief at all is asked as against the Panchayath and therefore, no notice is required. 3. If no relief is asked for against the Panchayath certainly the Panchayath is not a necessary party to the suit and the impleadment of the Panchayath is unnecessary. 4. It is submitted that the suit is included for trial in the list tomorrow as the case which stood posted for trial in the list on 19/01/09 was got adjourned on application of the petitioners. It is seen observed by the court below in the impugned order that in the suit instituted on 01/09/06 the petitioner has filed this petition for impleadment only in 2009 when the suit is already included in the list and no reasonable ground has been stated for the long delay caused in filing the application. Those were also the reasons why the court below passed Ext.P3 order dismissing W. P. C. No.3542 of 2009 -3- Ext.P1 application for impleadment. For all the above reasons stated and for the reason that no relief is sought for against the Panchayath, I am of the view that the petition for impleadment has been filed only to see that the suit in the list is got adjourned and disposal of the suit is protracted. There is absolutely no necessity to implead the Panchayath. 5. In the result, there is no necessity for this Court to interfere in the dismissal of Ext.P1 application by the court below. This Writ Petition is hence, dismissed. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-