IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2009 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30508 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16/10/2009 IN IA 3934/09,IA 3935/09 IN OS.642/2008 of ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.PONNATH SAROJINI AMMA VAZHEKKATUKKARA DESOM, MURIYAD VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. BINDU, RADHAKRISHNAN, W/O.PONNATH RADHAKRISHNAN, VAZHEKKATTUKKARA DESOM, MURIYAD VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADVS.MR.P.VIJAYA BHANU SMT.M.M.DEEPA MR .V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. GEORGE, VETTATHUPARAMBIL MATHUNNI KODAKARA VILLAGE, DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. SHIJO, S/O.ARIKKADAN VARGHESE, VAZHEKKATTUKKARA DESOM, MURIYAD VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 3. THE SECRETARY, MURIYAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH. 4. BEENA RAFI, W/O.INIKKAL RAFI, VAZHEKKATUKKARA DESOM, MURIYAD VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.30508 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Set aside Ext.P6 order dated 16/10/2009 in I.A No.3934/2009 & I.A No.3935/2009 in O.S No.642/2008 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Irinjalakkuda. ii) Stay all further proceedings in O.S No.642/2008 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Irinjalakkuda. Iii) Issue such other further reliefs as are necessary in the interests of justice. 2. Petitioners two in number, moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking their impleadment as additional plaintiffs in O.S No.642/2008 on the W.P.(C).No.30508 OF 2009 Page numbers file of the Additional Sub Court, Irinjalakuda at the stage when the above suit was listed for trial. Suit was instituted by two persons seeking a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction to restrain the local authority and another, the former for issuing a license and latter from opening a slaughter house within that panchayat. Suit was filed by the plaintiffs in a representative capacity seeking permission to do so under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Publication as mandated by the above rule, it is stated, was also effected. After the case was included in the list for trial, the present petitioners moved an application for their impleadment as additional plaintiffs in the suit stating that plaintiffs have joined hands with the defendants and so much so their impleadment as additional plaintiffs in the suit is essential. The learned Munsiff dismissed that application vide Ext.P6 order. Propriety and correctness of that W.P.(C).No.30508 OF 2009 Page numbers order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary and hence it is dispensed with. Needless to point out that the plaintiffs are the masters of the suit. In a suit filed by another in the absence of special circumstances no stranger can come forward and seek his impleadment as additional plaintiff to continue the prosecution of the suit. It may be open to a party to come on record as an additional defendant showing his interest in the subject matter or dispute arising for adjudication in the suit. Publication as under Order 1 Rule 8 was made much earlier and the present petitioners W.P.(C).No.30508 OF 2009 Page numbers did not appear before the court to get themselves impleaded in the suit showing their interest over the disputes covered by the suit. It is only at the stage when the case was included in the list they have come forward to seek their impleadment. Whatever be the merit of the case canvassed by them for the impleadment, I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the court below that their application cannot be entertained at that belated stage. There is no merit in the writ petition, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv