IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 10559 of 2006(F) -------------------------- OS.58/2003 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: ----------------------- T. BOSE, S/O.THANKAPPAN, PARIPPALLYPURAYIDAM, KC VI/762, ULIYAKOVIL CHERRY, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM 8. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SMT.MEREENA JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. T.P.KUTTAPPAN, HOUSE NO. 132, JANANI NAGAR, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. K.N.RAVIKUMAR, HOUSE NO. 1, JANANI NAGAR, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM. 3. PUSHPADHARAN, PUTHENPURA VADAKKETHIL, MC VI/753,, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM. 4. PONNAMMA, W/O.SUKUMARAN, PUTHENPURA VADAKKETHIL, MC VI/755, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM. 5. VIJAYAN, S/O.KUNJAN, PUTHENPURA VADAKKETHIL, MC VI/755, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM. 6. LEELA, W/O.SAHADEVAN, PUTHENPURA VADAKKETHIL, MC VI/754, KADAPPAKKADA KOLLAM. Kss ..2/- ...2..... WPC.NO.10559/2006F 7. BHADRAN, S/O.NANU, PUTHENPURA VADAKKETHIL, MC VI/520, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM. 8. B.RAJEEVAN, ASHA BHAVAN, AKSHYA NAGAR, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM. 9. K.RAJENDRAN, DONA BHAVAN, H.NO.164, VRINDAVAN NAGAR, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM 8. 10. RAJENDRAN, ADMINISTRATOR, KUMARAVILASOM SNDP SAKHA YOGHAM NO. 493, ULIYAKOVIL CHERRY, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM. 11. SASIDHARAN, S/O.KUTTAN, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR KUMARAVILASAM, SNDP.NO.493, BRANCH ULIYAKOVIL, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.MURALEEDHARAN SRI.N.SUKUMARAN SRI.S.ANANTHASUBRAMANIAN SRI.S.SHYAM SRI.N.K.KARNIS SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.10559/2006 F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.58/03 AND THE SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 7 DTD. 18/02/2003. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 8 AND 9. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE I.A.NO.620/06 FILED BY THE 11TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE OBJECTION IS FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.620/06 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM DTD. 21/02/2006. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 10559 OF 2006 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T Under challenge in this writ petition filed under the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution filed by the plaintiff in the suit is Ext.P6 order passed by the Trial court allowing impleadment of additional defendants 10 and 11. The application for impleadment was filed by the Assistant Administrator of Kumaravilasom SNDP Branch. The ground on which impleadment of additional defendants 10 and 11 was sought for was that it is those additional defendants who are in present administration of the property and other affairs of the SNDP Branch and not the additional defendants 8 and 9 in the suit who had been impleaded as persons responsible for the affairs of the branch. 2. he suit was filed bythe writ petitioner plaintiff seeking interalia for a declaration regarding the easement by prescription/ necessity over the B schedule pathway which is said to be a private access to A scheduleproperty belonging to him. The office bearers of the SNDP sakha were impleaded as respondents 8 and 9 on noticing that the Sakha was having some interest over the property in respect of which decree was sought for by the petitioner. By the time the case was WP(C)N0. -2- listed for trial administration of the affairs of the Sakha had been entrusted with the administrators, one of whom was summoned as a witness in the suit. It ishe who filed the impleadment application seeking that it is he and his co-administrator who are managing the affairs of the sakha and that they are tobe impleaded as additional parties and that additional defendants 8 and 9 who had been impleaded on behalf of the sakha were to be deleted. The learned Munsiff by the impugned order allowed the application for impleadment but delined the prayer to delete additional defendants 8 and 9. 2. I have heard the submissions of Sri.B.Mohan Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. N.Sukumaran, learned counsel for the respodnents. Mr. Mohanlal submitted that the writ petitioner was the dominus litis and in the wake of oppositin by the writ petitioner plaintiff the learned Munsiff should not have allowed the application of the additional defendants 10 and 11 tocome on record. According to the learned counsel, the appointment of the administrator and deputy administrator for the SNDP Branch are developments subsequent to the institution of the suit and their tenure was for a limaited period and therefore there was no need to implement the additional respondents. No document whatsoever had been produced by the additional WP(C)N0. -3- respondents to support their claim that they are thepresent administrators of the SNDP Yogam. 3. Submissions of Mr.Mohanlal were resisted by the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. I have considered the rival submissions and I have gone through the impugned order and I have scanned the same by the yardsticks which are applicable for the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. Applying those yardsticks I am unable to say that Ext.P6 is vitiated to the extent of justifying interference under the supervisory jurisdiction. Learned Munsiff did notice that dominus litis the plaintiff has opposed the application, but at the same time it should be remembered that it was plaintiff's own case that the SNDP Branch was a necessary party to the suit and that the additional defendants 8 and 9 the then office bearers of the Sakha were removed. Additional defendants 8 and 9 did not have any personal interest in the matter. They were impleaded only in their capacity as office bearers of the Sakha. Since it was not in serious dispute that the affairs of the Sakha were as on the date of Ext.P6 is managed by the administration additional respondents 10 and 11 there was no impropriety in impleading additional respondents 10 and 11. That the WP(C)N0. -4- learned Munsiff applied his mind to the issue is clear from the circumstances that the learned Munsiff did not allow application in full the prayer for deletion of additional respondents 8 and 9 was rejected and only the prayer for impleadment was allowed. Challenge against Ext.P6 fails and the writ petition would stand dismissed. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) ksv/