IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2009 / 5TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24799 of 2009(O) -------------------------- I.A.NO.7460 OF 2009 IN OS.1637/2008 of I ADDL.M.C.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): DEFENDANTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. VIKRAMAN NAIR, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. LATE GOPALA PILLAI, RESIDING AT VADAKKE OTTARATHALLA VEEDU, PAPPANAMGODE.P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUDHA DEVI, AGED 59 YEARS, W/O. VIKRAMAN NAIR RESIDING AT VADAKKE OTTARATHALLA VEEDU, PAPPANMGODE.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF: --------------------------------------------- SIVASANKARAN NAIR, S/O. LATE GOPALA PILLAI, KAILAS, NEAR S.N.COLLEGE, CHEMPAZHANTHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.24799 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of August 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Call for the records leading to Ext.P5 order dated 18/08/2009 passed by the First Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram, in I.A No.7460 of 2009 in O.S No.1637 of 2008 and to set aside the same and to dismiss the said application with cost to the petitioners herein. ii) To grant such other reliefs in favour of the petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant. W.P.(C).No.24799 OF 2009 Page numbers 2. Petitioners are the defendants in O.S No.1637 of 2008 on the file of the First Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The above suit is one for permanent prohibitory injunction, and the respondent is the plaintiff. Respondent moved an application for impleadment of an additional defendant to the suit. Though that application was objected to by the petitioners / defendants the learned Munsiff after hearing both sides allowed it vide Ext.P5 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P5 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent is W.P.(C).No.24799 OF 2009 Page numbers necessary and it is dispensed with. It appears, the case of the plaintiff is that the plaint property was purchased from the defendants. Subsequent to the conveyance of that property in his favour, it is the case of the plaintiff, another transfer was made by the defendants in favour of the person, and that transferee was sought to be impleaded as an additional defendant in the suit. It appears, the respondent/ plaintiff apprehended that the absence of the subsequent purchaser may cause harm and injury to his property. Though the impleadment was objected to by the petitioners / defendants the learned Munsiff found some merit in the apprehension made by the respondent / plaintiff and allowed the application for impleadment. I find no impropriety or illegality in Ext.P5 order passed by the learned Munsiff. In case the proposed additional defendant has got any serious objection against her W.P.(C).No.24799 OF 2009 Page numbers impleadment as a party in the suit, she can challenge the impleadment. So far as the present defendants are concern their right to challenge the impleadment of the third party in the suit filed by the respondent who is the dominus litus of the suit cannot be approved. Writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv