IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 29033 of 2011(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MEGA STAR KURIES & LOANS (P) LTD., PUTHUKADAN AYPE BUILDING, RICE BAZAR, CHEMPUKKAVU, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN K.P.JOSE. BY ADV. SRI.N.P.SAMUEL SRI.B.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,THORNUR I VILLAGE OF FICE, SHORNUR, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN 679 121. 2. THE TAHSILDAR,OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD 679 101. 3. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT., REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MUHAMMAD SHAH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 29033/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF SALE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY OTTAPALAM MUNSIFF COURT IN EP NO.315/05 IN OS NO.2724/2000 DATED 22/6/2007 EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION & ORDER ISSUED BY R1 ON 10/3/2011 EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF PETITION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R1 ON 18/3/2011 EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY R1 BEFORE R1 ON 18/3/11 EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOCOPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY R1 BEFORE R2 ON 29/3/11 EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BU PETITIONER BEFORE R1 ON 18/5/2011 EXHIBIT P7 PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER NO.4/11 ISSUED BY R1 ON 13/6/2011 EXHIBIT P8 PHOTOCOPY OF ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 14/8/08 EXHIBIT P8(A) PHOTOCOPY OF ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 9/3/11 EXHIBIT P9 PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGEMENT IN WPC NP/10250/2009 DATED 7/4/2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. dnc ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 29033 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T According to the petitioner they purchased a property and made an application for its mutation. It is rejected by the first respondent. It is this order which is challenged in this writ petition. 2. Counsel for the petitioner relies on Ext.P9 judgment in support of his plea that the pendency of an attachment can be no reason for declining the mutation. Though in principle the learned counsel is right, in this writ petition the petitioner has not impleaded the person who has obtained the attachment. In that sense the writ petition is defective for non jointer of necessary parties. Therefore the writ petition is rejected leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue his remedies under Rule 18 of the Transfer of Registry Rules. The writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/-