IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16349 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/03/2009 IN IA 1188/2008 IN OS.104/1998 of MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE'S COURT,PATTAMBI .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ NASSAR,S/O.PULAKKAL ENTHUTTY, PATTAMBI PALLIPRAM AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.SANTHEEP ANKARATH, SMT.N.N.PRASEEDA. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. T.A.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN, S/O.LATE T.A.MAMUTTY,RESIDING AT NETHIRIMANGALAM,PATTAMBI. 2. P.USMAN,S/O.MOHAMMD,PARATHODU HOUSE, NETHIRIMANGALAM AMSOM,PATTAMBI. 3. ASIYA,W/O.P.USMAN, -DO- -DO- 4. YOUSAF,S/O.CHITHAKUNNATH MUHAMMEDKUTTY, PERUMUDIYUR AMSOM,KODUMUNDA DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 5. BASHEER,S/O. -DO- -DO- -DO- -DO- 6. NOUSHADALI,S/O. -DO- -DO- -DO- -DO- 7. PALLIMA UMMA,W/O.LATE CHITHAKUNNATH KUNHAHAMMED,PERUMUDIYUR AMSOM AND DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. Kss ..2/- ....2.... WPC.NO.16349/2009 O 8. NABEESUMMA,W/O.LATE CHITHAKUNNATH MOHAMMED KUTTY,PERUMUDIYUR AMSOM AND DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 9. AMEER,S/O.LATE CHITHAKUNNATH MOHAMMED KUTTY,PERUMUDIYUR AMSOM AND DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 10. RAFEEK,S/O.LATE CHITHAKUNNATH MOHAMMED KUTTY,PERUMUDIYUR AMSOM AND DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 11. UMMER,S/O.LATE CHITHAKUNNATH MOHAMMED KUTTY,PERUMUDIYUR AMSOM AND DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 12. MANSOOR,S/O.LATE CHITHAKUNNATH MOHAMMED KUTTY,PERUMUDIYUR AMSOM AND DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 13. AYSHABI,AGED 16 (MINOR), D/O.LATE CHITHAKUNNATH MOHAMMED KUTTY, MINOR REPRESENTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT YOUSAF. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.16349 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: i. to call for the records leading to Ext.P5 and set aside Ext.P5 order; ii. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Munsiff-Magistrate Court, Pattambi, to allow I.A.No.1188/2008 and implead the petitioner as supplemental defendant in O.A.No.104 of 1998. iii. to issue such other orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioner moved an application for impleading him as an additional defendant in a pending suit, O.S.No.104/1998, on the file of the Munsiff Magistrate Court, Pattambi. Suit was one for injunction filed by the 1st respondent against the WPC.16349/09 2 2nd respondent. During the pendency of the suit, some additional defendants were impleaded in the suit. Petitioner, who claimed of purchasing a portion of the property involved in the suit, and, on that basis, moved an application for his impleadment as an additional defendant. Impleadment was objected by the plaintiff. The learned Munsiff, after hearing both sides, dismissed the application under Ext.P5 order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in this writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and also the facts and circumstances involved and the nature of the relief sought for in the suit, which was instituted nearly ten years ago, I find no impropriety in the order passed by the learned Munsiff declining the request of a subsequent purchaser of a portion of suit property, during the pendency of the suit, to get himself impleaded as an additional defendant. Plaintiff is the master of the suit and he should be given the freedom as against whom he should seek the relief. If during the continuance of the lis transactions over the suit properties are WPC.16349/09 3 made and purchasers/assignees of such properties are permitted to be impleaded as additional defendants, there will be no end to litigation and to its finality. The learned counsel for the petitioner wanted this Court to make it clear that the dismissal of the writ petition will not impinge his right in any manner to take appropriate proceedings as envisaged by law to protect and safeguard the properties obtained by him under the sale deed. Needless to point out whatever observations made relate to the merit of the application moved for impleadment of the petitioner as an additional defendant in the pending suit, and nothing more. The observations made in this judgment, it is made clear, will not in any way affect the title/right or possession, if any, obtained by the petitioner over the property covered by his deed. Writ petition is devoid of any merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R --------------------------------------------------------- 23rd March, 2009