IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2009 / 2ND BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24212 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.41/2007 of SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- ANITHA BAAJEE, W/O.BAAJEE GOVINDAN, KRISHNANJANAM, SIVAJI NAGAR, KALLAYAM, NOW RESIDING AT MUTHOOT VALLEY MIST,I.A.KRISHNA NAGAR, PEROORKADA. BY ADV. MR.R.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. JUSTINE RAJ, KEERTHANAM,SREE LANE-I, EDAPPAZHANJI, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SYNDICATE BANK REP.BY ITS MANAGER, KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.24212 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of August 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) To call for the records in O.S No.41/2007 in the Sub Court, Nedumangad, under the Supervisory jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court and set aside Ext.P3 order in I.A No. 46/2008 in O.S o.41 /2007 holding that it is highly illegal, arbitrary and Court below had failed to exercise the discretion in a judicial way. ii) To issue such other writ direction or order to quash Ext.P3 order as the Court was failed to exercise the jurisdiction in a legal way. W.P.(C).No.24212 OF 2009 Page numbers 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S No. 41 of 2007 on the file of Sub Court, Nedumangad. Suit is one for money, and the respondent is the sole defendant in that suit. The case of the plaintiff in a nutshell is that the first defendant allowed him to occupy a building owned by him receiving an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as security. While he continued in occupation of that building, the second respondent, bank proceeded against that building since it had already been given as security for a loan availed by the first defendant. Admittedly the property was brought to sale and the plaintiff was evicted from that building. Petitioner / plaintiff moved an application for impleadment of the second respondent / bank as a codefendant in the suit. The learned Sub Judge after issuing notice to the proposed second defendant / bank and hearing the bank as well W.P.(C).No.24212 OF 2009 Page numbers dismissed the application for impleadment by Ext.P3 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P3 order is challenged in the writ petition 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 no notice to the respondents is necessary and it is dispensed with. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impleadment of the second respondent / bank in the suit is necessary so that he can get appropriate orders for claiming the excess amount obtained by the bank by sale of the property which now remain in the suspense account of the bank. A sum of Rs.3,00,000/- is still in the suspense account after satisfying the decree debt due on sale of the W.P.(C).No.24212 OF 2009 Page numbers property. If that be so, petitioner can take appropriate steps as envisaged by law, for which the impleadment of the bank as a codefendant when no relief against the bank is claimed in the suit is not necessary. I find no impropriety or illegality in Ext.P3 order passed by the learned Sub Judge disallowing the request of the petitioner to implead the second respondent as a codefendant in the suit. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv