IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2008 / 3RD SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22494 of 2008(C) -------------------------- OS.188/2007 of SUB COURT,PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER: -------------- POULOSE, AGED 71 S/O.DEVASSY MAIPAN HOUSE THIRUMUDIKUNNU DESOM KORATTY KIZHAKKUM MURI VILLAGE MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. JOHN, S/O.JOSEPH EDAMATTATH MANGALATH HOUSE PERINGIZHA KARA MARADI VILLAGE MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 2. DEVASSYKUTTY, S/O.ENASU PADAYATTY HOUSE KALADY KARA KALADY VILLAGE ALUVA TALUK. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== W.P.(C) NO. 22494 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 25th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner was not a party to O.S.188/2007 before Sub Court, North Paravur originally. He was impleaded later on a petition filed by plaintiff under Rule 10 of Order 1 of Code of Civil Procedure. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to quash Ext.P6 order impleading him under I.A.4683/2007. It was contended that Ext.P6 order was passed without giving notice to the petitioner and petitioner had earlier filed a claim petition under Rule 58 of Order XX1, when the property was attached under Rule 5 of Order XXXVIII of Code of Civil Procedure and upholding the claim of the petitioner, the claim petition was decided and therefore learned Sub Judge should not have impleaded petitioner as a defendant. 2. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not W.P.(c)22494/2008 2 find any illegality or irregularity or sufficient reason to interfere with Ext.P6 order. When a petition to implead third party as a defendant is filed by plaintiff, the Code of Civil Procedure does not contemplate any advance notice to the parties to be impleaded inviting his objections. In such circumstance, petitioner cannot challenge Ext.P6 order on the ground that no notice was issued prior to his impleadment in the suit. Petitioner is entitled to file a written statement and take up all the contentions including the non- maintainability of the relief sought for as against him, in view of the order passed by the court in the claim petition. Writ Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006