IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2011 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1932 OP(C).No. 982 of 2011(O) ------------------------ OS.946/2010 of MUNSIFF COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: --------------------- DR.P.V.GEORGE, AGED 70, S/O.LATE KURIAN VARGHESE, THAICHAYIL, MUKKOLLAKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI SRI.RAJAN VELLOTH SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.RAFEEK. V.K. SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.SEBIN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SMT.JIJI @ BINDU, AGED 42, D/O.MYDHILI, KP IV/276, `HARSHITAM', MUKKOLAKKAL, KUDAPPANAKUNU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 044. 2. SMT.MRINALINI, AGED 47, D/O.MYDHILI, KP IV/276, `HARSHITAM', MUKKOLAKKAL, KUDAPPANAKUNU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 044. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C).No.982 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT The first defendant in O.S.No.946 of 2010 on the file of the court of the Munsiff of Thiruvananthapuram filed I.A.No.4897 of 2010 to implead the State of Kerala represented by the District Collector, the Village Officer and the wife of the first defendant as additional defendants in the suit. The court below dismissed theapplication holding that the plaintiff does not seek a decree against the proposed additional defendants and that the first defendant has not filed any counter claim. The court below also held that it is not necessary to implead the additional defendants for the proper disposal of the suit. 2. According to the first defendant, the suit is bad for non joinder of parties and misjoinder of parties. He also raised a contention that the plaint 'C' schedule property is O.P.(C) No.982/2011 2 a public pathway vested in the Government, over which the plaintiffs have no right, ownership or possession. It is stated in the affidavit in support of the application that on the basis of the complaint filed by the wife of the first defendant before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvananthapuram, local inspection of the property was conducted by the Village Officer and an order was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer directing the second plaintiff, her husband and her mother to remove the gate erected in the public pathway. The first defendant stated in the affidavit that the property in dispute was surrendered for public purposes several years back and the attempt of the plaintiff is to get exclusive right over that property. In these circumstances, the first defendant contended that additional defendants sought to be impleaded are necessary and proper parties to the suit. 3. The plaintiff is the master of the suit. If the contention of the defendant that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties is accepted, necessary consequences will O.P.(C) No.982/2011 3 follow. The defendant cannot file an application and insist that the proposed additional defendants should be impleaded and thus, indirectly compel the plaintiff to fight a litigation against the persons with whom he does not want to fight. It is true that Rule 10(2) of Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure gives ample power to the court to join a party as additional defendant, when the court finds that his presence in the party array is necessary in order to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. The court did not find any reason to invoke that jurisdiction. The defendant cannot compel the plaintiff to expand the scope of litigation. The court below was right in holding that the application is without merit. No grounds are made out for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Original Petition is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl