IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34534 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.57/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT,HARIPAD .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. UMMERKUNJU, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED KUNJU, WARD NO.11, THRIKUNNAPUZHA PANCHAYAT, PANOOR. 2. SHIHABUDEEN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED KUNJU, PATTATHIL VEETTIL, WARD NO.11,THRIKUNNAPUAZHA PANCHAYAT. 3. PRAMOD, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.GOPINATHAN MUTHAMPARAMBHIL, -DO- -DO- 4. SASIDHARAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.SANKARAN, PUTHUVALIL VEEDU, PALLIPPAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UMMERKUNJU METHAR ALIAS UMMER HAJI, AGED 85 YEARS, S/O. MUTHEENKUNJU METHAR, KANDATHIL VEEDU, PALLIPPAD, THRIKKUNNAPUZHA. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.BOARD, KARTHIKAPPALLY. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2 & 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.34534 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioners, three in number, sought for impleadment as additional defendants in O.S No.57 of 2007 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Harippad, admittedly, after commencement of the trial in that case. That suit was filed by the first respondent herein as against respondents 2 and 3 for a mandatory injunction for removal of an electric post from his property and to reinstall it on the side of the road. Petitioners who claim to be enjoying the benefits of the public road beside which the electric post is sought to be reinstalled after shifting it from the property of the plaintiff wanted to come on record as additional defendants to resist the suit claim. At the time of hearing, it is submitted that the application moved by them for impleadment was rejected by the court below and the case has been posted for hearing after closing of the evidence tomorrow. Having W.P.(C).No.34534 OF 2009 Page numbers regard to the facts presented as above, I find the application moved by the petitioners at the belated stage after the commencement of the trial could not have been entertained by the court whatever be the merit of the case canvassed by them for impleadment as additional defendants in the suit. It is open to the petitioner to canvass their grievance in appropriate forum in appropriate proceedings as provided by law. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv W.P.(C).No.34534 OF 2009 Page numbers