IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2009 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16081 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- IA 1213/2009 IN OS.NO.800/1999 OF ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- KERALA OORAIMA DEVASWOM BOARD, PALLIKKARA MADOM, VADUTHALA, KANAYANNUR TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.N. KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI, AGED 80 YEARS, S/O. MITHRAM NAMBOOTHIRI, PULIKKAMATTATH ILLAM, KAKKAT KARA, PIRAVAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.P.K.SAJEEV. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIR DAMODARAN NAMBOOTHIRI, S/O. NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI CALLED ALSO AS K.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOOTHIRI, KIZHUPURATH ILLOM, PANACHICADU KARA, PANACHICADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK. 2. SREEJITH, S/O. DAMODARAN NAMBOOTHIRI, KIZHUPURATH ILLOM, PANACHICADU KARA, PANACHICADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK. 3. DAMODARAN PURUSHOTHAMAN NAMBOOTHIRI, KIZHUPURATH ILLOM, MUNDACKAL PALACE, KULANADA P.O., PANDALAM. 4. DAMODARAN DAMODARAN NAMBOOTHIRI, KIZHUPURATH ILLOM, KIZHUPURATH MADOM, PANACHICADU, KUZHIMATTOM P.O., KOTTAYAM TALUK. W.P.(C). NO.16081/2009-O: 5. NARAYANAN VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, ABHAYAM, KANIMANGALAM,THRISSUR. 6. NARAYANAN NEELAKANTAN NAMBOOTHIRI, PAZHAYAKARINATTU HOUSE, PANACHICADU, KUZHIMATTOM KOTTAYAM. 7. NARAYANAN NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, KARINATTU ILLOM, PANACHICADU, KUZHIMATTOM, KOTTAYAM. 8. VASUDEVAN KIRAN, S/O. VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, ABHAYAM, KANIMANGALAM, THRISSUR. 9. NARAYANAN VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, KAIMUKKU ILLOM, PANACHICADU, KUZHIMATTOM, KOTTAYAM. 10. NARAYANAN NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, KAIMUKKU ILLOM, PANACHICADU, KUZHIMATTOM, KOTTAYAM. 11. VASUDEVAN NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, KAIMUKKU ILLOM, PANACHICADU, KUZHIMATTOM, KOTTAYAM. 12. VASUDEVAN SREEKUMAR, S/O. VASUDEVAN NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, KAIMUKKU ILLOM, PANACHICADU, KUZHIMATTOM, KOTTAYAM. 13. NARAYANAN NAVEEN, S/O. NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, KAIMUKKU ILLOM, PANACHICADU, KUZHIMATTOM, KOTTAYAM. 14. NARAYANAN PRAVEEN, S/O. NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, KAIMUKKU ILLOM, PANACHICADU, KUZHIMATTOM, KOTTAYAM. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.16081 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “To call for the records leading Ext.P9 and set aside the same” 2. Petitioner moved an application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC to implead him as an additional defendant in O.S.NO.800/99 pending on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kottayam. Ext.P1 is the copy of the plaint in that suit which was one for framing of a scheme for the administration of one Devaswom, namely, Panachicadu devaswom, and for consequential reliefs. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing that the suit was instituted under Section 92 of CPC after obtaining leave of the court. At the fag end of the trial it seems the petitioner approached the court with an application for impleading him as an additional defendant in the suit. The plaintiff in the suit as well as the defendants objected the impleadment and the learned Munsiff after hearing both sides dismissed the application under Ext.P9 order. Propriety and correctness of that order is impeached in this W.P.(C).No.16081 of 2009 - O 2 writ petition invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. 4. Perusing Ext.P9 order and also taking note of the facts and circumstances involved, I find no impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the learned Munsiff in the suit filed under Section 92 CPC. Naturally, publication was required to be effected as the judgment passed in the suit operates in rem and not in person. The counsel for the petitioner also does not dispute such publication was made inviting all those interested in the subject matter to appear and take part in the lis pending before the court. Petitioner approached the court after the entire evidence was recorded and when the case stood posted for arguments. That itself shows that the petition has been moved without bonafides, perhaps, as a dilatory tactic to delay the trial of the suit. There is no merit in the petition and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-