IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2008 / 12TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 21 of 2008(C) ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA. 3298 /2007 IN OS.138/2007 of ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- JOHNSON, S/O. CHATHELI OUSEPH, ANATHADAM DESOM, ALOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, ALOOR P.O.-680 683. BY ADV. SRI.S.VINOD BHAT RESPONDENT: ----------------------- OUSEPH, S/O. CHATHELI OUSEPH, ANATHADAM DESOM, ALOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK ALOOR P.O.-680 683. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 21 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed seeking to set aside the order in I.A.3298/07 in O.S.138/07. It was a petition to implead defendants 2 to 9. The suit is one for realisation of the amount with a charge on the property. The Court below found that the junction of defendants 2 to 9 is not necessary at this stage and therefore dismissed the application. The principle of impleadment involves the question; (1) Whether they are necessary parties to the proceedings and (2) Whether their junction is absolutely necessary to resolve the controversy between the parties. 2. I am informed that the suit is based on an agreement which is denied by the defendants. Now, the attempt to implead defendants 2 to 9 is on the basis that the property has been transferred by the defendants to them and therefore they must be also on the party array for a proper W.P.C 21 OF 2008 -:2:- decision on the suit. The question to be primarily determined in this case is regarding the entitlement of the plaintiff to get the relief, that is, by proving the alleged agreement. In order to determine that factor the junction of defendants 2 to 9 are not necessary. Further if the agreement is proved and there is a charge then it goes without saying that the charge runs with the land and not with the individual. Therefore, the junction of defendants 2 to 9 are not necessary for disposal of the case and so I do not find any error committed by the Court below in dismissing the application. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. 3. I make it clear that the dismissal of this application shall not stand in the way of the writ petitioner at any later stage to move for appropriate reliefs. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- W.P.C 21 OF 2008 -:3:-