CRP No. 603 of 2010 · Kerala High Court

...2...CRP. NO.603/20104. FARHANA (MINOR), D/O.LATE PATTARAKADAVAN KUNHAHAMMED, CHEMMANKADAVU KODOOR AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN/MOTHER, 2ND RESPONDENT THATTARATHODI RASIYA. 5. MUBASHIRA (MINOR) D/O.LATE PATTARAKADAVAN KUNHAHAMMED, CHEMMANKADAVU KODOOR AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN/MOTHER, 2ND RESPONDENT THATTARATHODI RASIYA. 6. FATHIMA, W/O.LATE PATTARAKADAVAN ABU, CHEMMANKADAVU, KODOOR AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 7. HASSANKUTTY, S/O.LATE PATTARKADAVAN ABU, CHEMMANKADAVU, KODOOR AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 8. USMAN, S/O.LATE PATTARKADAVAN ABU, CHEMMANKADAVU, KODOOR AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 9. HAKEEM, S/O.LATE PATTARKADAVAN ABU, CHEMMANKADAVU, KODOOR AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 10. RAMLA, D/O.LATE PATTARKADAVAN ABU, CHEMMANKADAVU, KODOOR AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL SRI.E.M.UNNIKRISHNAN (MANJERI) SRI.K.C.ANTONY MATHEW R2-10 BY ADV. SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON23-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:svs CRP. NO. 603/2010APPENDIXPETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:ANNEXURE 1:COPY OF ORDER DATED 13/10/2010 OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, MANJERI IN I.A. NO.1387/2010 IN O.S. NO.79/2009.ANNEXURE 2:COPY OF THE COUNCILING FORM OF THE ORCHID GROUP STEERING COMMITTEE, MALAPPURAM.RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/P.A. TO JUDGE.svs S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------------- C.R.P No.603 OF 2010-------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2012ORDER Petitioner claims to be a committee formed by a group of persons to whom financial liabilities were outstanding to be discharged by one Kunhahammed, who is now no more.

Petitionerstyling itself to be in such capacity had moved an application for itsimpleadment as an additional defendant under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure in a suit for recovery of money, O.SNo.79/2008, filed by the 1st respondent against the legal heirs of Kunhahammed, his widow and children. The liabilities to the plaintiff and similarly placed creditors of Kunhahammed had been incurred by him towards operation of his business establishments and now all those assets have been taken over by the petitioner committee was their case seeking impleadment as an additional defendant in the suit. That application was opposed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff. Thelearned Sub Judge found no merit in the application moved for by there vision petitioner seeking its impleadment as an additional defendant in the suit, and it was turned down. Propriety, legality and correctness of that order is sought to be assailed invoking therevisional jurisdiction vested with this court.

C.R.P No.603/201022. I heard the counsel on both sides. The plaintiff in the suit has not sought for a decree against the petitioner who claims to have taken over the assets of late Kunhahammed. The petitioner has not produced any material before the court to set forth a case that legally it is entitled to take over the assets of Kunhahammed, or represent him in any claim against his assets. The fact that the petitioner is constituted as a committee and the claim made that it has taken over the assets of Kunhahammed, even if assumed to be true, that would not in any way affect the legal rights of the creditor, the plaintiff, to proceed against the legal representatives of late Kunhahammed, the debtor, and also the assets of Kunhahammed which they would get by inherence. The respondents 2 to 10 in the revision are stated tobe the legal heirs of late Kunhahammed and, in fact, it appears, they have no objection in the impleadment of the petitioner as an additional defendant.

But, the plaintiff, needless to state, is thedominus litus of the suit and his entitlement to sue only against the legal heirs of his debtor cannot be interfered by a stranger, unless it shows its legal right to be brought in at least as a proforma party in the suit. Petitioner has not shown any semblance of right to beimpleaded as a party in the suit. There is no merit in the revision, and it is dismissed. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE//True Copy// P.A to Judge