IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 CRP.No. 620 of 2010() --------------------- OS.598/2007 of PRL.M.C.,KOZHIKODE-II .................... REVN. PETITIONER/PETITIONER/III RD PARTY -------------------------------------------- K.T.RAJI @ RAJESWARI, W/O.RAVEENDRAN, CHAMBAYIL HOUSE, NADUVATTOM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ABOOBACKER(EDAPPALLY) RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS ------------------------------------- 1. K.T.R.A. TRUST, REP. BY MANAGING TRUSTEE, K.T.RAMESH, S/O.ACHUTHAN, OTHAYAMANGALATH, KOOTULY AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE.-672021 2. K.T.PRAKASH, S/O.GOPALAN, 63 YEARS, KALOORTHOTTULY HOUSE, CHEVAYOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE-672021 3. K.T.PRASAD, S/O.GOPALAN, 58 YEARS, POSHGARDEN HOUSE, KOOTULY AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE-672021 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.620 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 23rd day of November, 2010 ORDER Order dated October 5, 2010 on I.A.No.2758 of 2010 in O.S.No.598 of 2007 of the court of learned Principal Munsiff-II, Kozhikode is under challenge at the instance of petitioner who is a third party to the suit. Respondent No.1 sued respondent Nos.2 and 3 (sisters of petitioner) for prohibitory injunction against trespassing into the suit property or creating documents in respect of the said property. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 remained ex parte. Petitioner filed I.A.No.2758 of 2010 to implead her as additional defendant No.3 claiming that though property described in the plaint schedule is item No.3 in the Trust Deed (over which petitioner has no claim), item No.2 in the Trust Deed belonged to her and the report of Advocate Commissioner is in respect of item No.2 property (in the Trust Deed) as well. Hence, it is contended that presence of petitioner as party in O.S.No.598 of 2007 is necessary for adjudication of the dispute particularly since respondent Nos.2 and 3 remained ex parte. Learned Munsiff was not inclined to accept the contention of petitioner and dismissed the application. C.R.P.No.620 of 2010 : 2 : 2. This revision petition itself is not maintainable in view of Sec.115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”). A revision against an order in a pending suit or other proceeding can be entertained only if the revision if allowed would terminate the suit or other proceedings. Here, an application for impleadment is filed in a pending suit and even if this revision is allowed, it will not terminate the suit. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner and in the light of the order I propose to pass I do not think it necessary to close this revision and ask petitioner to file petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. 3. Petitioner has no claim over the property described in the plaint schedule and even according to her, the suit property is item No.3 in the Trust Deed over which respondents are claiming title. So far as petitioner has no interest in that property she cannot claim to be a necessary or proper party. Now the contention is that item No.2 in the Trust Deed belonged to the petitioner and the report of the advocate commissioner is concerning that property. Any decree passed without petitioner on record and concerning any portion of property belonging to her cannot bind her. I am not persuaded to think that to oppose C.R.P.No.620 of 2010 : 3 : report of the Advocate Commissioner petitioner must be impleaded as a party. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am not persuaded to think that petitioner is either a necessary or a proper party to the suit. I do not find reason to interfere with that. Resultantly this petition fails and it is dismissed without prejudice to the right of petitioner to object to the execution of the decree if passed concerning any portion of the property belonging to her. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-