IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31517 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.41/1998 of PRL.M.C.KOZHIKODE-I .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- MOOLAMVALLY KEEZHILATH DINESAN, S/O.SAROJINI AMMA, AGED 42, PUTHIYANGADI VILLAGE, EDAKKAD AMSOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.SRINATH GIRISH SRI.E.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THAYYIL PANKAJAVALLY, D/O.MEENAKSHI AMMA, EDAKKAD AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 2. MOOLAMVALLY KEEZHILATH UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.JANAKI AMMA, EDAKKAD AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31517 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of November 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT In a pending suit which has been instituted nearly a decade ago in which specific directions had been issued in a previous writ petition by this court for an expeditious disposal with a rider that no unnecessary adjournment at the instance of any party is to be entertained, petitioner, a third party, moved an application for his impleadment as additional defendant. That application after consideration was turned down by the learned Munsiff vide Ext.P6 order. Writ petition is filed challenging the propriety and correctness of Ext.P6 order. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the suit, the defendant had raised a claim on the basis of a document, which is W.P.(C).No.31517 OF 2009 Page numbers disputed by the present petitioner as void since it had been executed in his capacity as the Karanavar of a tharavad after the commencement of the Kerala Joint Family Abolition Act, is the case canvassed for impleadment of the petitioner as an additional defendant in the suit. Plaintiff is the dominus litus of the suit. It is for the plaintiff to decide as against whom he should seek relief. Plaintiff in the present case has not sought for any relief against the petitioner who seeks impleadment as an additional defendant in the suit. The case of the petitioner that he has some challenges against the document under which the defendant claims right over the property is not a sufficient ground to get himself impleaded in the suit filed by another. There is no merit in the challenge against Ext.P6 order. Writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// vdv P.A TO JUDGE