IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 27217 of 2008(M) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.7.08 IN IA.4500/2008 IN OS.721/2007 of PRL.M.C.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ P.K.RAMESAN, S/O.K.K.KARUNAKARAN, RESIDING AT T.C.15/507, UDARASIROMANI ROAD, VAZHUTHACAUD, SASTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN SMT.M.HEMALATHA SRI.R.S.MADHU SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN RESPONDENT: ------------- D.LATHA, D/O.KRISHNAN, RESIDING AT THAKIDIYIL VEEDU, AMACHAL, KULATHUMMAL VILLAGE, KATTAKKADA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. -------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.27217 OF 2008-M ---------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is the defendant in O.S.No.721/2007 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Trivandrum, challenges Ext.P3 order dated 16.7.2008 passed by the learned Munsiff dismissing the petitioner's application for impleading a third party by name Appavoo as additional third defendant in the said suit. The suit is for realisation of a sum of Rs.76,654/= with interest thereon by way of arrears of rent. The contention raised by the petitioner is that he had discharged the rent to one Appavoo. When the plaintiff is admittedly the land owner in respect of the property in question, the impleadment of said Appavoo to whom the defendant claims to have paid the rent was unnecessary, particularly in the face of the objection by the plaintiff who is the dominus litis. It is for the plaintiff to decide as to which all persons should be on the party array in the suit instituted by him, unless the person who is not joined as party is a necessary party. The court below cannot be faulted for dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner/defendant. WPC.NO.27217/2008 . 2 This writ petition is without merit and it is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR,JUDGE. cl