IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23452 of 2010(O) -------------------------- OS.60/2010 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- DEVI NAGAR RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION(REG.NO. T5255/06)KOWDIAR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT MR.SREEKUMAR, S/O.GOPALAN NAIR, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT VAILOOR VEEDU, KOWDIAR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR SRI.G.SURARSHAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE TRIVANDRUM GOLF CLUB, REPRESENTED BY ITS HON.SECRETARY , GOLF LINKS ROAD, JAWAHAR NAGAR,KOWDIAR PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SMT.NIVEDITA.P.HARAN, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. SRI.C.REGHU, DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,REVENUE DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,KUDAPPANAKKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No.23452 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 27th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT This revision is in challenge of Ext.P5, order on I.A.No.3617 of 2010 in O.S.No.60 of 2010 of the court of learned Additional Sub Judge-II, Thiruvananthapuram, popularly known as the Golf Club case. That is a suit filed by respondent No.1 against respondent No.2, State and its officials for a declaration of right and injunction based on proceedings initiated by the State Government to evict respondent No.1 from the suit property. There were a few writ petitions in that matter filed in this court and ultimately the Supreme Court directed respondent No.1 to hand over possession of the property to the State Government. The Supreme Court also directed trial court to dispose of the case on merit within three months from the date of respondent No.2 onwards filing written statement. Respondent No.2 onwards have filed their written statement and the learned Additional Sub Judge has already scheduled the suit for trial. At that stage petitioner, claiming to be a Residents Association sought its impleadment in the suit vide I.A.No.3552 of 2010. That application was dismissed for default on 25-06-2010. Then came W.P.C.No.23452 of 2010 : 2 : Ext.P3, application (I.A.No.3617 of 2010 for review of the order dismissing I.A.No.3552 of 2010 for default. That application was opposed by respondents and the learned Additional Sub Judge has passed a detailed order on that application stating that there is no merit in the claim of petitioner in seeking impleadment and dismissed that application vide Ext.P5, order which is under challenge. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that petitioner, on the facts and circumstances of the case is a necessary or atleast a proper party to the litigation and if not impleaded, its right will be hampered. Reference is made to Ext.P1, report of the Committee of Legislative Assembly. Based on it the State Government initiated action which culminated in respondent No.1 filing the present suit. Learned counsel has invited my attention to the observation made by the Committee of Legislative Assembly in Ext.P1 and also relief No.B prayed for by respondent No.1. 2. Essentially respondent No.1 is the master of suit and it has not sought for any relief against petitioner. In the normal course it is for respondent No.1/plaintiff to decide who should be party to its suit and the court gets power to implead a third only when it is found that such party is a necessary or proper party to the suit. A necessary party is one in whose absence the W.P.C.No.23452 of 2010 : 3 : controversy involved in the suit cannot be adjudicated and who has a direct interest in the subject matter of the suit. A proper party is one whose presence is appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. Question is whether petitioner comes in any of the above category so that it has to be impleaded as a party in the suit. Relief No.B prayed by respondent No.1 in the plaint is a decree for prohibitory injunction to restrain respondent No.2 onwards from evicting it from suit property or in any way interfering with or obstructing user of the property by respondent No.1 and its members. Turning to Ext.P1, report of the Committee of Legislative Assembly what is stated in paragraph 9 is that Committee has recommended that for the use of about 150 families residing towards east of the suit property a way having width of 15 feet has to be urgently provided. That report is given to the State Government and hence it is for the State Government to decide upon that recommendation of the Committee. If it is assumed that the suit is decreed in favour of respondent No.1 that cannot in any way affect the right if any, claimed by petitioner through the suit property and it is within the power of petitioner to enforce that right in separate proceeding. Now the issue involved in the suit is whether termination of license in favour of W.P.C.No.23452 of 2010 : 4 : respondent No.1 at the instance of State Government is valid and pursuant to such termination respondent No.2 onwards are entitled to take possession of the suit property. To adjudicate that dispute presence of petitioner on the party array is not necessary either as a necessary party or as a proper party. 3. It is true that I.A.No.3552 of 2010 was dismissed for default and there was no consideration of that application on merit. But, on I.A.No.3617 of 2010 for review of the order on I.A.No.3552 of 2010 learned Additional Sub Judge has referred to all relevant facts and circumstances to hold that petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party requiring impleadment in the suit. Learned Additional Sub Judge has also referred to the order issued by the Supreme Court directing disposal of the suit within 3 months of filing written statement and the effort being made by learned Additional Sub Judge to comply with that order. Impleadment of petitioner, I am satisfied is not necessary and would only further prolong the suit which cannot be permitted. I do not find merit in this writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-