IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2009 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1930 CRP.No. 109 of 2009() --------------------- AS.40/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): THIRD PARTY PETITIONERS --------------------- 1. PULIKKAL ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O. ABDUL KHADER, PULIKKAL HOUSE, P.O. KOLENCHERRY, KANNUR. 2. ARUVANPALLY PUTHIYAPARAYIL MAHAMOOD, S/O. MOIDEEN KUTTY, RASHEEDA MANZIL, NIDUVAT, P.O. NARATH, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PANKAJAKSHAN RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANT & PLAINTIFFS --------------- 1. POOVAMKULATH THOTTAM PUTHIYAPURAYIL SAINABA D/O. UMMER ABDULLA, KOLENCHERRY AMSOM, PATTAYAM DESOM, KANNUR. 2. BAPPUTHANTAVIDA HAMZA, S/O. BAYITHAM, KOLANCHERRY AMSOM, KAMBIL DESOM,TALIPARAMBU TALUK. 3. BAPPUTHANTAVIDA PATHUMMA, D/O. LATE ALEEMA, KOLENCHERRY AMSOM KAMBIL DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. 4. BAPPUTHANTAVIDA HASSAN, S/O. LATE ALEEMA, KOLENCHERRY AMSOM KAMBIL DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. 5. BAPPUTHANTAVIDA AMINA, D/O. LATE ALEEMA, KOLENCHERRY AMSOM KAMBIL DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. CRP 109/09 -2- 6. BAPPUTHANTAVIDA AYISHA, D/O. LATE ALLEMA KOLENCHERRY AMSOM KAMBIL DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. ADV. SRI.C.KHALID FOR R1 SRI.N.GOPINATHA PANICKER FOR R1 SRI.R.O.MUHAMED SHEMEEM FOR R1 SRI.T.P.SAJID FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP 109/09 ORDER IN I.A.NO.420 OF 2009 IN CRP NO.109 OF 2009 DISMISSED 17.3.2009 SD/- K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.109 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2009 ORDER The petitioners are assignees from the plaintiffs in O.S.No.258 of 2003 on the file of the court of the Additional Munsiff of Kannur. The suit was filed by the assignors of the petitioners for fixation of boundary. The suit was decreed by the trial court as per judgment and decree dated 28.2.2006. The defendants filed appeal as A.S.No.40 of 2006 on the court of the Subordinate Judge of Thalassery challenging the judgment and decree of the trial court. In that appeal, the petitioners herein filed I.A.No.3959 of 2008 to get themselves impleaded as additional respondents in the appeal. That application was opposed by the defendants/appellants. The court below dismissed the application for impleading by the order dated 5th January 2009 which is under challenge in this Revision Petition. 2. The court below dismissed the application for impleading on the ground that the petitioners purchased the property on 31.5.2006 and have filed the application for impleading only on 31.10.2008 and no explanation was offered CRP No.109/2009 2 for the delay in filing the application. Here the application is filed by the assignees of the plaintiffs after the decree was passed by the trial court. The plaintiffs are the respondents in the appeal. As assignees, the petitioners in the revision are entitled to protect their interests. They cannot put forward any contention contrary to the contentions raised by the plaintiffs. In the case on hand, the plaintiffs being the respondents could only support the decree passed by the court. As assignees, the petitioners also would do the same thing. No prejudice would be caused to the defendants/appellants by allowing the application for impleading filed by the assignees. Therefore, I am of the view that the court below should have allowed the application for impleading. The order passed by the court below is set aside. I.A.No.3959 of 2008 is allowed. The petitioners shall be impleaded as the additional respondents in A.S.No.40 of 2006, Sub Court, Thalassery. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl