IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6675 of 2008(T) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.6792/07, 6791/07 IN OS.316/2005 of PRL.M.C.,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SANKARAN NADAR BALAKRISHNAN NADAR, ANAND BHAVAN, VENPAKAL DESOM, ATHIYANNOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CHINNAPPAN LOUIES DAMIYAN LOUIES, SACRET HEART HOUSE, AMBALATHUMMOOLA, KOTTUKAL DESOM, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE. 2. ESDORE MORIES SYRIL MORIES, JACOB HOUSE, PULLUVILA STREET, KARIMKULAM DESOM, KARIMKULAM VILLAGE. 3. T.C.PAUL, SREEVALSOM VEEDU, V.P.NO.VIII 548 (A), PIDARAM, VILAVOORKKAL DESOM,V VILAVOORKAL VILLAGE. 4. GEETHA JOSE, OF DO, DO. 5. DIVA PAUL, OF DO, DO. 6. CHELLAMMA, CHOVARANINNA KUZHIVILA VEEDU, KOTTUKAL DESOM, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE. 7. DAMODARAN APPUKUTTAN, OF DO, DO. 8. DAMODARAN RAVEENDRAN, OF DO, DO. 9. DAMODARAN RAJENDRAN, OF DO, DO. 10. BHARGAVI, OF DO, DO. 11. KRISHNAN NADAR PARAMESWARAN OF DO, DO. WPC.6675/08 12. KRISHNAN NADAR GOPI, OF DO, DO. 13. KRISHNAN NADAR THANKAPPAN, OF DO, DO. 14. SAHARIYAS BERTHILOMIYA STANLY BERTHILOMAYA T.C.NO.27/479(1) BUILDING CROSS ROAD, KUNNUKUZHI, KANNAMMOOLA WARD, VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, FROM PULLUVILA THAZHE VEEDU, KARUMKULAM DESOM, KARUMKULAM VILLAGE. 15. VASANTHY, VANDAZHANINNA ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, CHOWARA, KOTTUKAL DESOM, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE. 16. CHELLAYYAN NADAR DIVAKARAN NADAR, RETD. CHECKING INSPECTOR, THEKKE BUNGLOW, KANNARAVILA, VENPAKAL DESOM, ATHIYANNOOR VILLAGE. 17. ROSAMMA.C.R.SUSEELA, KAZHUMAKKALAVEEDU, CHANI, KANJIRAMKULAM P.O., KANJIRAMKULAM VILLAGE. 18. ROSAMMA.C.R.RAJAN, JIJI BHAVAN, THENNOORKONAM, KOTTAPPURAM, VIZHINJAM P.O., VIZHINJAM VILLAGE. 19. K.SAROJINI, KANNARAVILAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, ATHIYANNOOR DESOM, ATHIYANNOOR VILLAGE. 20. R.S.RAJKUMAR, OF DO, DO. 21. R.S.AJITHAKUMARI, KAILAS, NALANCHIRA, NALANCHIRA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 22. R.S.SALINKUMAR, OF DO, DO. 23. JOYS THE BEACH RESORT PVT. LTD., (REG. NO.U55101 KL 2001 PTCO 15108) CHOWARA, KOTTUKAL DESOM, KOTTUKAL PAKUTH REPRESENTED BY GEETHA JOSE, W/O.T.C.PAUL, V.P.VIII/548(A) SREEVALSOM VEEDU, PIDARAM, VILAVOORKKAL DESOM VILAVOORKKAL VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH FOR R3-5& 23 SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) FOR R1 SRI.A.R.DILEEP FOR R1 SMT.KAVITHA GANGADHARAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.6675/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED NIL O.S.NO.316/2005 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 18.10.2005. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED NIL. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.12.2007 IN I.A.NO.6791/07 AND I.A.NO.6792/07 IN O.S.NO.316/2005 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.6675 OF 2008 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.316 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara. Suit is one for partition, and the respondents are the defendants in the suit. Ext.P1 is the copy of the plaint and Ext.P2 is copy of the written statement filed by the 1st defendant, the 1st respondent herein. In Ext.P2 written statement, the 1st respondent had contended that in respect of the property covered by the suit there was an earlier suit for partition and after passing of a preliminary decree, final decree proceedings are pending in that suit. It was further contended in Ext.P2 written statement, among other contentions, that the decree passed in the previous suit is binding on the present plaint, and at any rate, all the parties in the previous suit are necessary parties in the present suit as well. Since all the parties in the previous suit have not been WPC.6675/08 2 impleaded in the present suit, it was contended that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. In view of the contentions taken by the 1st respondent as aforesaid, the plaintiff moved two applications, one for impleadment of about 200 persons who are stated to be parties in the previous statement, as supplied under the statement filed by the 1st defendant, and the other for amendment of the plaint to set aside the decree passed in the previous suit instituted by the 1st defendant as a plaintiff. The learned Munsiff after considering the applications found both the applications not entertainable, and as such, the applications were dismissed vide Ext.P4 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P4 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. I have perused Ext.P4 order impugned in the writ petition with respect to the submissions made by the counsel on both sides. Taking note of the facts and circumstances presented in the case, I find the WPC.6675/08 3 impleadment of additional parties and also amendment with respect to the pleas canvassed thereof arise for consideration only after issues are cast in the suit, which no doubt, in view of the contentions of the 1st defendant in Ext.P2 written statement, in all probabilities, have to include an issue regarding the non-joinder of parties. In case such an issue is cast among other issues in the suit, needless to point out, that issue has to be gone into preliminarily by the trial court, and depending on the finding to be entered by the court in the nature of the pleadings canvassed in the suit the question of impleadment of necessary parties has to be considered for a fair and proper adjudication of the suit. At that stage alone, the question of impleadment of additional parties in the suit arise for consideration. So much so, reserving the right of the plaintiff to have impleadment of additional parties if a finding is entered by the court that the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties and making it clear that the finding entered under Ext.P4 will not stand in the way of the plaintiff seeking for impleadment, and on that count if amendment of the plaint is required in case a finding is entered that the suit is bad for WPC.6675/08 4 non-joinder of parties, the writ petition has to be disposed of, and it is ordered accordingly. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp