IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 2ND ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 26894 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.682/2009 IN OS.250/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, KALPETTA .................... PETITIONER: --------------- V.T. VIJAYAN, S/O. LATE CHANTHU NAIR, MOOVI HOUSE, MARYKUNNU, VHEVAYOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MR.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) MR.PRASANTH M.P RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. P. KOMALAVALLY AMMA, W/O. LATE U. CHANDRAN NAIR, KOMALA BHAVAN, KAKKAVAYAL P.O., PURAKKADI VILLAGE, SULTHAN BATHERI, WAYANAD. 2. ARUNKUMAR C.K., S/O. CHANDRAN NAIR, KOMALA BHAVAN, KAKKAVAYAL P.O., PURAKKADI VILLAGE, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD. 3. B.M. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O. P. VELAYUDHAN NAIR, NINIBHITHA BHAVAN, D.P.O. ROAD, YAKKARA VILLAGE, PALAKKAD. 4. U. KUTTAPPAN NAIR, S/O. DAKSHAYANI AMMA, UMMOLI HOUSE, KOTTAMPARAMBA-CHELAVOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.26894 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “To set aside Exhbit P5 order as highly unjust, illegal and arbitraru and may direct the court below to implead the 4th respondent herein as supplemental 4th defendant in the suit.” 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.250 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kalpetta. Suit is one for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants/respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule rooms by the petitioner/plaintiff. Respondents 1 to 3/defendants in the suit filing written statement resisting the suit claim, the plaintiff moved an application for impleadment of another party, additional fourth respondent application as a co- defendant in the suit. Learned Munsiff after hearing both sides dismissed the application for impleadment of the fourth respondent as a co-defendant in the suit vide Ext.P5 order. W.P.(C).No.26894 of 2009 - O 2 Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in this writ petition seeking the aforementioned relief invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find that no notice to the respondents is necessary, and it is dispensed with. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the contentions raised by the defendants/respondents 1to 3 in the suit the impleadment of fourth respondent as a co- defendant who was an erstwhile partner of the firm and privy to the agreement by which the plaint schedule rooms were let out to the plaintiff, as a co-defendant in the suit is essential to substantiate the relief claimed in the suit. Perusing Ext.P5 order passed by the court below with reference to other exhibits produced in the writ petition and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find the court below was fully justified in holding that impleadment of the fourth respondent as W.P.(C).No.26894 of 2009 - O 3 a co-defendant against whom no decree was sought for cannot be allowed. I find no jurisdictional infirmity in Ext.P5 order passed by the court below holding that the fourth respondent is not a necessary party nor even a proper party in the suit. No interference with the order of the court below is called for. Writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-