IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15314 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.1448/2006 of I ADDL.M.C.,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- GEORGE,S/O. KUNDUKULANGARA ITTOOP CHALAKKAL DESAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.JIJO PAUL, SMT.T.RESMI DAMODARAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THOMA,S/O.CHITTILAPPILLIKUNNATH LAZAR, CHALAKKAL VILLAGE, DESAM, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. ANDREWS, S/O. PALLISSERY PORINCHU, CHALAKKAL VILLAGE, DESAM,THRISSUR TALUK. 3. THOLUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, THOLUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,THOLUR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.15314 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd 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 reliefs: “i) To call for the originals of the records leading to Ext.P7 and set aside and quash the same. ii) To direct the 1st Additional Munsiff, Thrissur to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to implead the 3rd respondent herein as the additional 3rd defendant in Ext.P1 suit and to allow the amendment to the plaint as prayed for in Ext.P4.” 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1448/2006 pending on the file of the Munsiff Court, Thrissur. Suit was one for perpetual prohibitory injunction. After a report from a commissioner was obtained in the suit, petitioner /plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint and also for impleading the local authority, Panchayath, as an additional defendant in the suit. That application was dismissed by the learned Munsiff by Ext.P7 order. Correctness of that order is W.P.(C).No.15314 of 2009 - O 2 impeached by the plaintiff in this writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. 4. It is submitted that the presence of the Panchayath at least as a proper party in the suit is essential for fixation of the water channel which is also one of the matters covered by the suit. Learned Munsiff has found that no relief is claimed against the Panchayath and the application for amendment and impleadment of the Panchayath as a party in the suit has been made at the fag end of the suit. It is brought to my notice that the suit is posted for trial in the special list tomorrow. Whether the Panchayath has to be impleaded as a proper party in the suit for fixation of the water channel over which also some disputes arise in the adjudication of the suit, of course, was a matter which should have been known to the plaintiff even before a report from commissioner was collected. Merit of the application moved by the plaintiff has to be examined with reference to the statutory interdiction under Section 249 of the Panchayath Act W.P.(C).No.15314 of 2009 - O 3 which mandates advance suit notice. Pending suit a notice has been issued to the Panchayath under Section 249 of the above Act is the submission of the counsel. Whatever that be, having regard to the fact that the suit is already listed for trial, I do not find any merit in entertaining this writ petition at this stage. The writ petition is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-