IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 24TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 25778 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AS.81/2008 of SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SIDDIQUE AKBAR, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O. VEERAN, PARAKKUNNATH HOUSE, CHELKKULAM KARA, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.PAUL.K.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SHERIFA, AGED 64 YEARS, W/O. ABDUL RAHIM, PARAKKUNNATH HOUSE, CHELKKULAM KARA, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE. 2. JAMEELA, AGED 49 YEARS, D/O. ABDUL RAHIM, PARAKKUNNATH HOUSE, CHELKKULAM KARA, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE. 3. AMINA, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O. ABDUL RAHIM, PARAKKUNNATH HOUSE, CHELKKULAM KARA, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE. 4. NABEESA, AGED 37 YEARS, D/O. ABDUL RAHIM, PARAKKUNNATH HOUSE, CHELKKULAM KARA, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE. 5. AYISHA, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O. ABDUL RAHIM, PARAKKUNNATH HOUSE, CHELKKULAM KARA, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE. 6. KAREEM, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAHIM, PARAKKUNNATH HOUSE, CHELKKULAM KARA, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE. 7. ISMAIL, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. SULAIMAN, PARAKKUNNATH HOUSE, CHELKKULAM KARA, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE. WPC.25778/09 8. SAIDUMUHAMMED, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O. VEERAN, PARAKKUNNATH HOUSE, CHELKKULAM KARA, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.25778 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: i. to call for records leading to Ext.P4 order and quash the same by issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or directions and allow Exts.P1 and P2 impleading petitions. ii. to direct the court below to reconsider Exts.P1 and P2 petitions in the light of the contentions raised by the respondents in the written statement. 2. Petitioner is the appellant in A.S.No.81 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Perumbavoor. The above appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.153 of 2001 of the Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor. Suit was one for declaration of title and injunction, and the WPC.25778/09 2 respondents are the defendants. Suit being dismissed, petitioner preferred the above appeal. In the appeal, the petitioner moved application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead some parties as additional respondents. That application was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge vide Ext.P4 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P4 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented with reference to Ext.P4 order, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary, and hence, it is dispensed with. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in Ext.P4 order turning down the request of the petitioner/appellant to implead additional parties in the appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties sought to be impleaded are necessary parties for resolving the controversies involved, and the court below has dismissed the suit for nonjoinder of necessary parties. WPC.25778/09 3 Whatever that be, once the suit had been dismissed, in the appeal preferred against the decision of the trial court, new parties cannot be brought in as desired by the petitioner/appellant for the reason that they had not been given an opportunity to meet the case of the petitioner/plaintiff raised in the suit. In case, the suit was dismissed for the reason of nonjoinder of necessary parties, it is open to the petitioner to seek the indulgence of the appellate court for remission of the case, after setting aside the decision passed by the court below, to implead necessary parties in the suit. If any such request is made by the petitioner, the court below shall consider and dispose it on its merits. I make it clear that I am not expressing any opinion on the merit of that request. Writ petition is disposed as indicated above. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp WPC.25778/09 4