IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH MARCH 2009 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 8780 of 2009(O) OS.144/2009 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,NEDUMANGAD PETITIONER: --------------- PUSHPAKUMAR, S/O.SUKUMARAN NAIR, KARTHIKA, BHAGAVATHINADA, BHAGAVATHINADA P.O., PALLICHAL DESHOM, PALLICHAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. N.K.ALAVUDEEN, S/O.M.P.N.KHAN, TC/1196, SREEKANTESWARAM, FORT P.O., VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, NEYYATTINKARA BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 8780 OF 2009 O ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 20th March, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.144 of 2009, on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Nedumangad. The suit was filed for fixation of boundary. The first respondent is the defendant in the suit. It would appear that for realisation of the amount due from the first respondent, the second respondent Bank has initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. At that juncture, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 application, I.A.No.1091 of 2009, to implead the second respondent Bank as an additional defendant in the suit. Ext.P3 application is not disposed of by the trial court. 2. The relief prayed for by the petitioner in this Writ Petition is to issue a direction to the Munsiff's Court, Nedumangad to dispose of I.A.No.1091 of 2009 within a reasonable time limit. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent Bank opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the second respondent is not a necessary party to the suit and that the application for impleading is devoid of merits. W.P.(C) NO.8780 OF 2009 :: 2 :: 3. I do not think that it is necessary to express any opinion on the merits of the case. The petitioner may move the trial court for an early disposal of the application for impleading. I do not think that any direction is required in this regard. The Writ Petition is closed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/