IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 25TH OCTOBER 2011 / 3RD KARTHIKA 1933 OP(C).No. 3395 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------- [OS.NO.110/1958 OF I ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM] .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. MOTTAVILA SREE BHADRAKALI KSHETRAM COMMITTEE,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,MOTTAVILA SREE BHADRAKALI KSHETRAM COMMITTEE OFFICE, ELAMKULAM, SREEKARIYAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SHAJI BABU,S/O.RAGHAVAN,SECRETARY, MOTTAVILA SREE BHADRAKALI KSHETRAM COMMITTEE, MOTTAVILA SREE BHADRAKALI KSHETRAM COMMITTEE OFFICE, ELAMKULAM,SREEKARIYAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. G.ARJUNAN,S/O.GOPALAN,CHAIRMAN, MOTTAVILA SREE BHADRAKALI KSHETRAM COMMITTEE, MOTTAVILA SREE BHADRAKALI KSHETRAM COMMITTEE OFFICE, ELAMKULAM,SREEKARIYAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND RESIDING AT ROHINI.T.C.5/1754, CHERUVAIKKAL,SREEKARIYAM P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH P.NAIR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. K.N,SUSEELAN,S/O.NEELAKANDAN,THRIPPADAM, MUNDAKKAL,EAST KOLLAM- 691 001. 2. B.CHANDRIKA,W/O.K.N.SUSEELAN, THRIPPADAM, MUNDAKKAL,EAST KOLLAM- 691 001. 3. MONI SUSEELAN,S/O.K.N.SUSEELAN, THRIPPADAM, MUNDAKKAL,EAST KOLLAM -691 001. O.P.(C).3395/2011-O: 4. MANO ALIAS MANU SUSEELAN, S/O.K.N.SUSEELAN, THRIPPADAM, MUNDAKKAL,EAST KOLLAM- 691 001. 5. G.SOMAN,S/O.GOPALAN,GURUDEVA SREE, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 004. 6. N.N. SARASWATHY ANTHARJANAM, W/O. THE LATE V. MAHDHAVAN POTTI, ELAMKULATHU MANGALATHU MELE MADAM (MANGALYA), KUNNATHUMURI, CHERUVAIKKAL VILLAGE, GOWRI NAGAR, PONGUMOODU, MEDICAL COLLEGE.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.(C).3395/2011-O: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT P1: TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.461/2011 IN EP. NO.118/2000 IN OS. NO.110/1958 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.740/2011 FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED I ADDL.MUNSIFF,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXHIBIT P3: TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2/8/2011 IN EA NO.461/2011 IN EP NO.118/2000 IN OS NO.110/1958 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. MUNSIFF,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.3395 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of October, 2011. JUDGMENT Petitioners challenged Ext.P3, order dated 02.08.2011 on E.A.No.461 of 2011 in E.P.No.118 of 2000 in O.S.No.110 of 1958 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff-I, Thiruvananthapuram. Respondents 1 to 5 are the additional decree holders in whose favour there is a decree for redemption of mortgage. The 6th respondent is the additional judgment debtor. The decree was granted in respect of 1.25 acres. Original decree holder is said to have transferred the said property to respondents 1 to 5 as per a registered document. Based on that registered document respondents 1 to 5 sought execution of the decree. According to the petitioners, they are the owners in possession of 58 cents on the west of the said 1.25 acres. Respondents1 to 5 attempted to trespass into the said 58 cents. Hence petitioners wanted to get impleaded in E.P.No.118 of 2000 and filed Ext.P1, application for the said purpose under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and under Section 151 of the said Code. That application was dismissed by the executing court as per Ext.P3, order which is under challenge. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel that the limited interest which petitioners have is to protect their property and for the said purpose, their impleadment in E.P.No.118 of 2000 is required. It is also submitted that OP(C)No.3395/2011 2 petitioners have filed O.S.No.740 of 2011 for a declaration of their title and for prohibitory injunction to restrain respondent 1 to 5 from trespassing into the 58 cents. 3. I need not refer to the other remedies if any available to protect the title and possession petitioners claimed over the 58 cents. I am at the question whether impleadment of petitioner in E.P.No.118 of 2000 is required. That, I am persuaded to think is not required as petitioners are not in any way concerned with the execution of the decree in O.S.No.110 of 1958. If petitioners have any other grievance it is open to the them seek redressal of their grievance in the other manner provided under the law. I do not find reason to interfere with the impugned order. With the above observation, Original Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks