IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2008 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8440 of 2008(D) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.No.207/08 IN O.S.NO.76/05 OF RENT CONTROL MUNSIFF, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PETITIONER: ------------ MAHESH CHANDRAN, S/O. SADASIVAN NAIR, RESIDING AT TC.28/2290, ALAPPURATHU VEEDU, SREEKANTESWARAM WARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. L. VASANTHA KUMARI, RESIDING AT T.C.NO.28/2332, ALAPPURATHU VEEDU, SREEKANTESWARAM WARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SHILPA KUMARI V.V., D/O. VASANTHAKUMARI, RESIDING AT T.C.28/2332, ALAPPURATHU VEEDU, SREEKANTESWARAM WARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SINDHUKUMARI V.V., D/O. VASANTHAKUMARI, RESIDING AT T.C.28/2332, ALAPPURATHU VEEDU, SREEKANTESWARAM WARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. BINDHU KUMARI V.V., D/O. VASANTHAKUMARI, RESIDING AT T.C.28/2332, ALAPPURATHU VEEDU, SREEKANTESWARAM WARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.8440 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Rent Control Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram in I.A.No.207/08 in O.S.No.76/05. 2. It was an application filed for impleadment by the plaintiff. I had perused the application for impleadment. It is contended that as per the plan prepared by the surveyor boundary is to be put up through BAML line in the southern side. In fact the above pathway shown on the southern side is being used by the property owners viz., Santhosh K.G. and Anandapadmanabhan. So it is submitted that they have to be made parties. A perusal of the order passed by the lower court would reveal that the case was first listed on 5.12.2005. It was removed at the instance of the plaintiff and again listed on 9.6.2006. On that day it was also removed. Then an Advocate Commissioner was appointed. The plaintiff did not co-operate with the Advocate Commissioner to record the evidence and it was dismissed. Then another application was filed. Thereafter, WPC 8440/08 2 the case was included in the list on 10.1.2008. A preliminary list was published on 5.12.2007. Petitioner did not move any application to remove the case from the list and now an application is filed for impleadment. So, the conduct of the plaintiff would show that he is more interested in protracting the case than conducting the case. I am conscious of the fact that opportunities should be given, but there must be a limit to give opportunities. Therefore, I find that the court below was right and the plaintiff has to face the consequences. Further, it is not desirable to entertain a petition under Article 227 against an interlocutory order. The writ petition is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE csl