IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 CRP.No. 309 of 2001(D) ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16/12/2000 IN IA. 1026 /1999 IN AS.35/1991 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT:REVISION PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ T.N.RADHAKANTHAN THIRUMULPAD, NILAMBUR KOVILAKAM, MANJERI. BY ADVS. MR.V.V.ASOKAN, SMT.S.AMINA. RESPONDENT(S) 2 TO 4/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4:RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CHANDRIKA, D/O.KANNAPPAN, GURUBHAVANAM, PNAPPAYIL, ERANJIMANGAD, AKAMPADAM, MANJERI. 2. KRISHNANKUTTY, PANAPPAYIL, ERANJIMANGAD, AKAMPADAM, MANJERI. 3. VALLIKAVUNGAL GEORGE, NILAMBUR. R3 BY ADVS.MR.RAJIT, MR.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.631/2001 IN C.R.P.NO.309/2001 DISMISSED 6/08/2009 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.No.309 of 2001 --------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2009 O R D E R The revision is filed challenging an order passed in an appeal allowing the impleadment of an additional respondent. On the application of the third respondent stating that pursuant to the commencement of the list, he has obtained title and possession over the property from the first and second respondents the appellate court allowed the application for impleadment. Petitioner/appellant sought a review of that order. Review petition was dismissed. Impeaching the correctness and propriety of that order, the petitioner has come up with this revision. 2. I heard the counsel for the petition and also the first and second respondents. Notice was served by affixture on the third respondent, the assignee, who was impleaded as additional respondent in the appeal. I am satisfied due service has been effected on the third respondent. C.r.P.No.309 of 2001 2 3. Having regard to the submissions made and the facts and circumstances presented, I find there is no merit in the revision challenging the dismissal of the review petition moved by the appellant. As additional third respondent, the assignee, is bound by the decree impugned in the appeal, it is always safer and better for the appellant to have his presence also in the appeal so that a binding decree can be passed against him. In that view of the matter also I hold the revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-