IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15679 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- OS.NO.92/2009 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKUDY. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- ALL KERALA TILE MANUFACTURES FEDERATION, POONKUNNAM P.O., THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT D.ANANTHASUBRAMANIAM, S/O.DEVARAJA IYER, AGED 77 YEARS. BY ADV. MR.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. VARGHESE, S/O.OUSEPH, KANICHIKKATTIL HOUSE, EAST CHALAKUDY DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, PIN: 691585. 2. KERALA STATE, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. 4. GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 5. VILLAGE OFFICER, EAST CHALAKUDY VILLAGE, EAST CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR. 6. AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, MUNICIPAL JUBILEE BUILDING, CHALAKUDY. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.15679 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “To call for records leading to Ext.P3 and set aside the same” 2. The 1st respondent herein filed a suit as O.S.No.92/09 as against respondents 2 to 6 for a perpetual prohibitory injunction to restrain them from granting any permission to remove soil from paddy fields scheduled in the plaint. In that suit, the petitioner moved an application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC to implead it as an additional defendant stating that any decree/order to be passed in the suit will have disastrous consequences on its members who are engaged in the removal of clay for manufacturing tiles. Impleadment sought for by the petitioner in that suit was objected to by the plaintiff. Learned Munsiff after hearing both sides passed Ext.P3 order disallowing that application. Impeaching the correctness and propriety of that order, petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. 3. The learned Government Pleader has taken notice for W.P.(C).No.15679 of 2009 - O 2 respondents 2 to 6. Notice to 1st respondent, plaintiff in the suit is dispensed, as I find notice to him on the submission made and the facts presented is not necessary. 4. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner at length and also perusing Ext.P3 order passed by the learned Munsiff, I find there is no impropriety or illegality in the order declining the request made by the petitioner for impleadment as an additional defendant in the suit filed by the 1st respondent. The petitioner has to work out his remedy by taking appropriate proceedings as envisaged by law and on the facts and circumstances presented, it is seen that he cannot resist the claim of the plaintiff in the suit which is sought for and confined to the defendants in that suit. The order/decree likely to be passed in the suit may have its ramification and consequences on the petitioner or its members, cannot be given any consideration, when the plaintiff has sought for relief of injunction only against defendants impleaded in his suit. The writ petition is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-