IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2009 / 2ND BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 31937 of 2008(B) ------------------------------------- OS.355/2001 of MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- A.P.V.SANTHAKUMARI, AGE 47 YEARS, W/O.SREEDHARAN, NHOKLY, PERINGOME AMSOM, DESOM, P.O. NHOKLY. BY ADV. MR.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. A.P.V. OMANA, D/O. MAHDAVI AMMA, RESIDING AT KADUKKARAM, PERINGOME AMSOM, P.O. KAKKARA. 2. A.P.V. BHANUMATHI, W/O. BALAKRISHNA, RESIDING AT KOTTILA, NARIKKODE, CHERUTHAZHAM AMSOM, P.O. NORIKKODE, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. A.P.V. MOHANAN, S/O. MADHAVI AMMA, RESIDING AT KADUKKARAM PERINGOME AMSOM DESOM, P.O. KAKKARA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. A.P.V. THANKAM, ANI, W/O. KANNAN, RESIDING AT MACHI, VAYAKKARA AMSOM DESOM, PERINGOME POST, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. A.P.V. PARASANNA, W/O. RAVENDRAN, RESIDING AT PONNAMPARA, PERINGOME AMSOM, DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 6. A.P.V. VIJAYAN, S/O. MADHAVI AMMA, MILITARY SERVICE, RESIDING AT KADUKKARAM, PERINGOME AMSOM DESOM, P.O. KAKKARA. W.P.(C) NO.31937/2008 7. PUTHALAVAN THAZHAVEETIL SASIDHARAN, S/O. KARTHIYANI AMMA, KALLYASSERI AMSOM DESOM, KOOCHERI. R1 – R3 & R6 BY ADV. MR.M.SASINDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.31937/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE [PLAINT IN OS.355/01 P2:- COPY OF THE JOINT WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY DEFENDANTS 1 TO 3. P3:- COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED SEPARATED BY 5TH RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE IA. 1119/08 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OS.355/01 IN THE COURT OF MUNSIFF , PAYYANNUR P5:- COPY OF THE IA. 1087/08 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OS.355/01 IN THE COURT OF MUNSIFF , PAYYANNUR. P6:- COPY OF THE IA. 1088/08 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OS.355/01 IN THE COURT OF MUNSIFF , PAYYANNUR. P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 2.9.08 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR IN IA.1119/08 IN OS. 355/01. P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 2.9.08 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR IN IA. 1087/08 IN OS. 355/01. P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 2.9.08 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR IN IA. 1088/08 IN OS. 355/01. P10:- CIRCULAR NO. SURVEY B/12700/08 DTD. 22.7.08 ISSUED BY THE SURVEY DEPARTMENT AND PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER PLAINTIFF. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31937 OF 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of August 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) To set aside the impugned orders at Exts.P7 to P9 orders dated 02/09/2008 of the court of the Munsiff, Payyannur in O.S No.355/01. ii) To direct the Court of Munsiff, Payyannur to restore the I.A No. 1119/2008, 1087/2008 and 1088/2008 on the file and to allow the same. W.P.(C).No.31937 OF 2008 Page numbers iii) To declare that unless the resurvey is conducted in the matter based on the title deeds and accordingly resurvey boundaries are fixed substantial injustice shall be caused to the parties to the suit, O.S No.355/2001. iv) To declare that in view of the well settled position in law, in petitions for impleading and amendment no limitation is applicable and liberal approach is necessary with a view to secure ends of justice. v) To grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S No.355 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Payyannur. Suit is for fixation of boundaries, and the W.P.(C).No.31937 OF 2008 Page numbers respondents are the defendants in the suit. Respondents filed their written statement resisting the suit claim. Plaintiff moved three applications seeking impleadment of survey officials as additional defendants 8 and 9 in the suit, consequential amendment on such impleadment in the plaint, and also for dispensing the notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on impleading of survey officials. The learned Munsiff passed separate orders on the respective applications, dismissing all of them. Exts.P7, P8 and P9 are the copies of the orders passed on the respective applications by the learned Munsiff. Propriety and correctness of those orders are challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C).No.31937 OF 2008 Page numbers 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impleadment of the survey officials as additional defendants 8 and 9 in the suit is essential for an adjudication of the disputes involved and fair disposal of the suit. Since the survey officials are sought to be impleaded as Government officials, it is submitted, an application was filed to dispense notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I find no impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the court below dismissing the application moved by the petitioner for impleadment of the survey officials dispensing with the notice under Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure. Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is based on public purpose which mandates issue of a notice to the Government in advance, stating the particulars of the suit claim, before any suit is filed against the W.P.(C).No.31937 OF 2008 Page numbers Government or public officer. The object of the Section is to avoid unnecessary litigation. When the mandate of the Section is to give notice before institution of a suit, after filing the suit seeking dispensation of that notice by filing a petition before the court cannot be entertained. In “Bihari Chowchary and others v State of Bihar and others” (AIR 1984 SC 1043) the apex court has considered the scope of Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure and it has been held that any suit filed against the Government or public officer not complying with the mandate of Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable. Further more, survey officials are sought to be impleaded without bringing the Government as an additional defendant. That is also against the provisions covered by Order 27 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Whatever be the case of plaintiff, for impleadment of the survey officials, W.P.(C).No.31937 OF 2008 Page numbers in view of the statutory bar, I find the orders passed by the learned Munsiff under Exts.P7, P8 and P9 are unassailable, but, I make it clear that none of the observations made in this orders shall have any bearing in disposal of the suit on merits. Writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv