Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 762 (KER)

Nesan Nadar v. FR. Vincent Samuel

2019-09-24

SHAJI P.CHALY

body2019
JUDGMENT : This original petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to set aside Exts.P12 and P14 orders passed by the Principal Munsiff's Court, Nedumangad in I.A.Nos.929/2016 and 2066/2018 in O.S.No.1065 of 2015, declining to implead respondents 3 and 4 as additional 3rd and 4th defendants, holding that the said persons are no way connected with the disputes by and between the parties in the suit. Brief material facts for the disposal of the original petition are as follows: 2. Petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents 1 and 2 are the defendants in the suit O.S.No.1065 of 2015 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Nedumangad, which is filed seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and their men from trespassing into the plaint schedule property or destroy the boundaries or obstruct the passage of the plaintiffs to the plaint schedule property or obstruct the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in the plaint schedule property. 3. The dispute arose in the matter of a pathway leading to the plaint schedule property. Petitioners sold 14 cents of land to the 4th respondent excluding the property in which a tomb is situated and the pathway leading to the tomb vide Ext.P2 sale deed, and she in turn transferred the property to the church represented by the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P3 sale deed. Petitioners 1 and 2 are the present trustees of the church. According to the petitioners, for a just disposal of the suit, respondents 3 and 4 who are parties to Ext.P3 sale deed are required to be impleaded as additional defendants 3 and 4 in the suit and by impleading them, no manner of prejudice is caused to defendants 1 and 2. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the pleadings and the documents on record. 5. The sole question to be considered is, whether any manner of interference is warranted to Exts.P12 and P14 orders. Ext.P12 order was passed by the court below on 21.12.2017, declining to implead respondents 3 and 4 as defendants 3 and 4 in the suit proceedings, holding that they are totally unnecessary parties to the suit proceedings. 5. The sole question to be considered is, whether any manner of interference is warranted to Exts.P12 and P14 orders. Ext.P12 order was passed by the court below on 21.12.2017, declining to implead respondents 3 and 4 as defendants 3 and 4 in the suit proceedings, holding that they are totally unnecessary parties to the suit proceedings. Anyhow, without disclosing the dismissal of the said Interlocutory Application, again Ext.P13 application was filed and the court below has clearly found out in Ext.P14 order that the order passed earlier by the court is not disclosed in the application filed, and in view of the dismissal of the application earlier, Ext.P13 application cannot be sustained under law. 6. On a perusal of the applications filed by the petitioners, it is categoric and clear that respondents 3 and 4 have no manner of connection with the disputes by and between the petitioners and respondents 1 and 2. No contentions are raised against respondents 3 and 4, and no reliefs are also sought against them. Merely because respondents 3 and 4 are said to be competent witnesses, in any transaction, they cannot be impleaded in the suit as defendants. In order to implead anyone in a suit proceeding as defendant, there should be a cause of action against them. There is no case for the petitioners that the said respondents are necessary parties to the suit, and that there is any cause of action against them. In this context, Order I, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure is relevant, which read thus: “ 3. Who may be joined as defendants.-- All persons may be joined in one suit as defendants where-- (a) any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist against such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative; and (b) if separate suits were brought against such persons, any common question of law or fact would arise.” The provision is self-explanatory, leading me to a safe conclusion that, there are no justifying circumstances to interfere with the order impugned, and that the said respondents are unnecessary parties to the suit proceedings. 7. 7. In that view of the matter, the stand adopted by the court below is fully justified, and the petitioners have not made out any case of patent jurisdictional error or illegality on the part of the court below, so as to interfere with Exts.P12 and P14 orders, exercising the power of supervisory jurisdiction. The original petition fails, accordingly it is dismissed.