IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 185 of 2008 ----------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03/10/2007 IN IA.NO.3116/2005 IN OS.89/2004 OF PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/IST CR.PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.KAMALA HASSAN, KARIMBIL HOUSE, ATHIKKAYAM, RANNI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN, MR.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/2ND CR.PETITIONER & DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. T.K.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, THOTTAPALLIYIL HOUSE, KUNNUMBHAGOM KARA, VELLAVOOR VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY. 2. VELLAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY ADVS. MR.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF, MR.A.MUHAMMED HASHIM, R2 BY ADV. MR.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.185 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11 th day of March, 2010 O R D E R The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.89/04 on the file of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Kottayam. The above suit was one for money. Suit claim was for refund of money which was tendered by the plaintiff in respect of a contract taken for collecting sand from Manimala River in an auction conducted by the 1st defendant local authority. The petitioner was the highest bidder in the auction and the right to collect sand was given to him accepting the bid amount stated by him. In view of the Sand Mining Prohibition Act which came into force during the continuance of the contract, he could collect sand only for a period of five months was the case of the claimant to claim refund of the portion of bid amount tendered for the remaining period from the panchayat. A third party moved an impleading petition in the suit contending that it is a collusive suit between the plaintiff C.R.P.No.185 of 2008 :: 2 :: and the local authority. Though objections were filed by the plaintiff, the learned Munsiff, after hearing both sides allowed the impleadment. Correctness and propriety of that order is challenged in the revision. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that suit being one for recovery of money, the presence of the contractual parties alone was necessary for disposal of the suit and at any rate, the third party, who had sought impleadment and which was allowed by the court has no right to be added as a party. The court below went wrong in impleading such a party as additional 2nd defendant in the suit is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Perusing the impugned order with reference to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find the impleadment of the third party was allowed by the learned Sub Judge finding that in the given facts of the case for a fair disposal of the C.R.P.No.185 of 2008 :: 3 :: suit it is essential. The request made by the third party was found to be bona fide and the objections raised against the impleadment meritless. Needless to point out that the court can at any stage of the suit implead any party to a proceeding when his/her presence is found necessary for a fair and proper adjudication of the suit. Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the court to implead a party whether or not there is a request from the party where the court is satisfied that such impleadment is necessary for a fair disposal of the suit. In the facts and circumstances present in the case, the request for impleadment by a third party, who has challenged the suit claim contending that the suit has been filed collusively by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant local authority was found bona fide by the court and it was therefore ordered his impleadment. Simply because the suit is for recovery of money, it cannot be contended that a third party cannot be impleaded in the suit. After all, the money is claimed C.R.P.No.185 of 2008 :: 4 :: from a local authority canvassing a case that the contract could not be given effect to in view of the prohibitory provisions of an Act which has come into effect during the continuance of the contract. Despite the commencement of the Act, whether the plaintiff had availed the benefits of the contract and collected sand, as contended by the additional 2nd defendant is also a matter to be considered in the suit to consider the entitlement of the plaintiff for the suit claim. I find no impropriety in the order passed by the court below permitting impleadment of the third party as an additional defendant in the suit. Revision is dismissed. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy//