IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 7478 of 2008(M) ------------------------- OS.1781/2005 of PRL.M.C.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ SREEKUMAR, S/O. BHASKARA KURUP, RESIDING AT 'SRUTHI NILAYAM', THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.MANU V. RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. REMA DEVI, D/O. LEKSHMI KUNJAMMA, RESIDING AT T.C.7/1814(1), THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. LEKSHMI KUNJAMMA, W/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, RESIDING AT -DO- -DO-. 3. GOPIKA GOPINATH, D/O. RADHIKA DEVI, RESIDING AT -DO- -DO-. 4. GOPINATHAN NAIR, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. RAGHAVAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT 'NARAYANIYAM', BHAGAWATHY NADA, PERUKAVU P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN FOR R4 SRI.NAIR AJAY KRISHNAN FOR R4 SRI.RAJAN VELLOTH FOR R4 SRI.SAIJO HASSAN FOR R4 SRI.A.S.SABU FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX(WP(C) 7478/2008) PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.1781 OF 2007 BEFORE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF I.A.10095 OF 2007 IN O.S.1781 OF 2007 BEFORE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY 4TH RESPONDENT IN I.A.10095 OF 2007 IN O.S.1781 OF 2007 BEFORE MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED.18.2.2008 OF THE COURT OF PRL. MUNSIFF, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. lgk M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... WP(C).No. 7478 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF AUGUST, 2008 JUDGMENT This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging Ext.P4 order passed by Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram in Ext.P2 petition(IA 10095 of 2007). Ext.P2 petition was filed by petitioner/plaintiff to implead 4th respondent as an additional respondent. Fourth respondent is the father of third respondent. Learned Munsiff, under Ext.P4 order, dismissed the application holding that 4th respondent is not a necessary party to the suit. Ext.P1 plaint shows that relief sought for is a perpectual injunction prohibiting respondents 1 to 3 from executing any document in respect of plaint A and B schedule properties. The agreement as per Ext.P1 plaint, was executed by respondents 1 to 3. Fourth respondent is not a party to that agreement at all. In such circumstances, I do not find any illegality or irregularity, warranting interference in Ext.P4 order. When 4th respondent is not a party to the agreement for sale and the only relief sought for in the suit is restraining executants of the document from alienating the property, 4th respondent is not a necessary or proper party. Hence writ WP(C) 7478/2008 2 petition is dismissed. The dismissal of the petition will not prevent petitioner from proceeding against 4th respondent in a separate suit if he has any such right. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-