RAVINDRANATHAN v. VALSALA AMMA

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.----------------------------------W.P.(C) NO. 17215 of 2005----------------------------------Dated this the 2nd day of August , 2007JUDGMENTAn application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC filed by the defendants for impleadment of two additional defendants in the suit on the reason that on the strength of partition effected subsequent to the filing of the suit, the additional defendants have come to have interest in the suit property, was dismissed by the learned Munsiff. Ext.P4 is that order which is under challenge. Theplaintiffs /respondents despite service of notice by this court has not entered appearance before this court. The contention of the respondents was that the prospective additional defendants are not necessary parties and that they have not acquired any interest in the suit property. The learned Munsiff noticed that the present petitioner had not raised contention in the written statement that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. Taking the view that the plaintiffis the dominus litus the learned Munsiff decided that it was not possible to allow the impleadment of additional parties on application submitted by the defendant who had not even contended that the suitis bad for non joinder of necessary parties. Sri. Dinesh Mathew WPC No.17215/20052J.Murikan, the learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the judgments of this court in Skaria Joseph v. Eliyamma Joseph(1996 (2) KLT 295) and in Girijadevi v. Hormis Thaliath (1983KLT 732) to contend that the court has an obligation to implead all necessary parties and also proper parties. I do not think that the learned Munsiff can be blamed in this case where the plaintiffs who are the master of the litigation submits that the prospective additional defendants are not necessary parties and that they are not desirous of any decree against them. Isustain the impugned order observing however that the decree to bepassed shall not bind the prospective defendants whom the petitioner wanted to implead. If the petitioner is having any genuine cause ofaction against the prospective additional defendants, confirmation of Ext.P3 by this court will not stand in the way of the petitioner instituting suit against them upon such cause of action. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE.Dpk