IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8952 of 2010(O) ------------------------------------ IA. 280/09 IN IA. 8781/08 IN OS.181/2003 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.A.ANOTNY, S/O.K.A.AUGUSTINE, KALLUVEETTIL HOUSE,KADAMKUDY,PIZHALA PO,\ ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV.MR.S.VINOD BHAT RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. K.J.YESUDAS, VICE PRESIDENT,TAXI DRIVERS TRUST, ERNAKULAM(AS DESCRIBED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER TO WHICH THE PETITIONER DOES NOT SUBSCRIBE). 2. TAXI DRIVERS UNION TRUST,ERNAKULAM. 3. A.C.JOSE,S/O.KOCHAKO,AMBATTU HOUSE, D.H.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 4. A.K.CHANDRAN, S/O.KESAVAN, KANNOTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,VYTTILA PO. 5. M.T.JOHN.S/O.THOMAS, MATTAMMACHIRAYIL HOUSE, THOPPUMPADY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P. BHAVADASAN, J --------------------------- W.P.C.No.8952 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.181/03 of Sub Court, Ernakulam. Suit was for specific performance. The suit was decreed. The decree holder remitted the balance sale consideration and sought for execution of the decree by judgment debtor. Application so made is produced as Ext.P1. 3. It is stated that the property belongs to the second respondent Trust and respondents 3 to 5 are the trustees. The 3rd respondent is the Managing Trustee and 4 and 5 are the Secretary and Treasurer of the Trustee. They were shown as judgment debtors in the execution petition. 4. The first respondent moved I.A.780/09 seeking to get himself impleaded in the execution proceedings. By the impugned order that petition was allowed. Objection is raised to the said order. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that W.P.(c) No.8952/10 2 the judgment debtors against whom reliefs are sought for are already on the party array and 1st respondent herein is an unnecessary party. The sale deed is to be executed by the defendants 3 to 5 and 1st respondent herein has no role to play. The presence of the petitioner who sought to get impleaded is unnecessary and therefore order of the court below allowing the impleading application is unsustainable. 6. Though the contention may look attractive, the fact remains that the person who sought to get himself impleaded is one of the parties to the suit and there is decree against him. Whether he is to execute the sale deed or not is a different question. No particular harm or prejudice is caused to the petitioner by the impugned order. It was after considering all the facts that the impugned order has been passed. This petition is without merits and it is accordingly dismissed. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. Sou.