IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4509 of 2009(J) AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.2538/2008 IN OS.144/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR PETITIONER: --------------- POTHERA SHYAMALA, AGED 50, D/O.CHINDAN NAMBIAR, ERAMAM AMSOM, MATHAMANGALAM DESOM, TALIPARAMBU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM SRI.JOY C. PAUL SRI.DOMINIC JOHNSON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. POTHERA GANGADHARAN NAMBIAR, AGED 64, S/O.CHINDAN NAMBIAR, MATHAMANGALAM AMSOM, MATHAMANGALAM P.O., TALIPARAMBU, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. KARUNAKARAN NAMBIAR, 67 YEARS, S/O.CHINDAN NAMBIAR, ERAMAM AMSOM AND DESOM, ERAMAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. KALLIYANI AMMA, 73 YEARS, W/O.KANA KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, PERALAM AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. POTHERA KARTHIYANI AMMA, AGED 90, W/O.CHINDAN NAMBIAR, R/O.CHATTIYOL P.O., OLAYAMBADU, KUTTUR AMSOM, TALIPARAMBU TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 4509 OF 2009 J ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th February, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.144 of 2007, on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Payyannur. The suit is for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing upon the plaint schedule property. The petitioner/plaintiff claims to be the sole legatee under the Will allegedly executed by Chindan Nambiar, father of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3. The defendants disputed the genuineness of the Will. 2. The fourth respondent, who is the mother of the parties, filed I.A.No.2538 of 2008 to get herself impleaded as additional fourth defendant in the suit. In the affidavit accompanying the application, the fourth respondent stated that after the death of Chindan Nambiar, the right over the disputed property and the house devolved upon the fourth respondent and her children including the plaintiff and defendants. She also contended that neither the plaintiff nor the defendants have any exclusive right over the property. It is also stated in the affidavit that her right would be affected if a decree is passed in the case without affording her an opportunity of being heard. W.P.(C) NO. 4509 OF 2009 J :: 2 :: 3. The application for impleading was opposed by the petitioner. In the objection, she stated that the application was filed at the instance of the defendants in order to protract the litigation. The petitioner/plaintiff does not understand why the mother has filed the application for impleading. It is also stated in the objection that the plaintiff does not want any relief against the mother. The court below, by a cryptic order, allowed the application. The order reads as follows: “Heard. I.A. allowed. Third party is impleaded as supplemental 4th defendant.” 4. Normally, an order like the one quoted above would be set aside on account of non-consideration of the contentions put forward by the parties. However, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the conclusion arrived at by the court below is erroneous. Even in the plaint it is stated that as per the Will there are stipulations for the care and protection of the mother. The plaintiff stated that she is prepared to comply with the stipulations in the Will. The mother says that the plaintiff has no exclusive right. I do not think that the rights of the petitioner are prejudicially affected by allowing the application for impleading. By allowing the fourth defendant to be impleaded,the court would get an opportunity to effectually and completely adjudicate upon the W.P.(C) NO. 4509 OF 2009 J :: 3 :: disputes involved in the case. I do not think that the order allowing the application, exercising jurisdiction under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is illegal or improper, though I am not satisfied with the way in which the order was passed by the court below. For the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the order passed by the court below. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/