Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1218 (KER)

Varkey Mathew v. E. V. Aleyamma

2017-09-15

ANIL K.NARENDRAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.199/2009 on the file of Munsiff's Court, Ranni, has filed I.A.No.1206/2017 in that suit, seeking an order to implead the District Collector, Pathanamthitta; Thahsildar, Ranni; and Village Officer, Kollamula as additional defendants in the suit, in order to challenge the allotment of patta in favour of the seventh defendant, Smt.Aleyamma. 2. The said suit is one seeking partition of plaint schedule item No.2 property by metes and bounds and allow the plaintiff to take 1/4th share of the said property. After the suit was included in the list, the defendants filed an application to amendment the plaint, to incorporate the pleadings regarding allotment of Ext.P2 patta in favour of the seventh defendant. That was allowed and the written statement was accordingly amended. 3. The plaintiff filed Ext.P3 application to implead the District Collector, Pathanamthitta; Thahsildar, Ranni; and Village Officer, Kollamula as additional defendants in the suit, in order to challenge the allotment of Ext.P2 patta. The said interlocutory application ended in dismissal by Ext.P4 order dated 24.7.2017, which is under challenge in this Original Petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff. 5. The suit is of the year 2009. The said suit has already been listed for trial, as discernible from Ext.P4 order. Ext.P4 order is dated 24.7.2017. In the original petition, the petitioner/plaintiff has not stated any reason for not approaching this Court immediately after the issuance of the said order. 6. In the impugned order, the Munsiff's Court found that the presence of the proposed defendants is not necessary for an effective disposal of the suit, for considering the genuineness of Ext.P2 patta. Since the suit has already been listed for trial, the impleadment of additional defendants will only drag the proceedings. 7. Law is now well settled that a necessary party is one without whom no order can be passed effectively and a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be passed but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision of the question involved in the proceeding. 8. In the instant case, admittedly, the suit is one for partition of plaint schedule item No.2 property by metes and bounds and for other consequential reliefs. In the written statement, defendants have raised a contention regarding allotment of Ext.P2 patta in favour of the seventh defendant. 8. In the instant case, admittedly, the suit is one for partition of plaint schedule item No.2 property by metes and bounds and for other consequential reliefs. In the written statement, defendants have raised a contention regarding allotment of Ext.P2 patta in favour of the seventh defendant. The presence of the proposed defendants, namely, the District Collector, Pathanamthitta; Thahsildar, Ranni; and Village Officer, Kollamula as additional defendants is not necessary for a proper and effective adjudication of the dispute which is the subject matter in O.S.No.199/2009. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff would then submit that, the petitioner/plaintiff may be given an opportunity to examine the District Collector, Pathanamthitta; Thahsildar, Ranni; and Village Officer, Kollamula as witnesses during the trial of the suit. 10. If the trial of the suit is not yet over, it is for the petitioner/plaintiff to move an application for the above purpose, which shall be dealt with appropriately by the Munsiff's Court, in accordance with law. In the result, this Original petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, subject to the observation as above.