IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31847 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.222/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPPALAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SOMASUNDARAN, S/O.GANDHINILAYTHIL DECEASED ACHUTHA VARIYAR, ALANGAD AMSOM, VETTEKKARA DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. HARINARAYANAN, S/O.DECEASED ACHUTHA VARIYAR, GANDHI NILAYAM, ALANGAD DESOM, VETTEKKARA DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 2. SAROJINI, CHALLIYIL VEETTIL, VETTEKKARA DESOM, ALANGAD DESOM. 3. SARATH, S/O.SAROJINI, CHALLIYIL VEETTIL, VETTEKKARA DESOM, ALANGAD DESOM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31847 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of November 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S No.222 of 2007 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Ottapalam. Suit is for perpetual prohibitory injunction, and the respondents are the defendants. Suit was instituted against respondents 2 and 3, as defendants, canvassing a case that they have no right to evict the plaintiff from the plaint scheduled property otherwise than in due process of law. Respondents 2 and 3 who claimed to be the wife and child of the plaintiff's brother, according to the plaintiff, have no such relationship and so much so, they have no right to evict him from the plaint scheduled property. During the pendency of the suit, brother of the plaintiff, the first respondent, herein moved an application for his impleadment in which he asserted that respondents 2 and 3 are his wife and child respectively. His impleadment as additional third defendant in the suit was allowed by the court. Propriety and correctness of that order, copy of which is produced as Ext.P7, is challenged in W.P.(C).No.31847 OF 2009 Page numbers the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented with reference to Ext.P7 order, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary and hence it is dispensed with. In the given facts of the case, presence of the first respondent/additional third defendant if not as a necessary party but at least as a proper party, it appears, is essential for a fair disposal of the suit. I do not find any illegality or impropriety in Ext.P7 order passed by the court below allowing the impleading petition moved by the first respondent and ordering of his impleadment as additional third defendant in the suit. Reserving the right of the petitioner to canvass in the suit whatever rights available to him as provided by law, the writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// vdv P.A TO JUDGE