K.BALAKRISHNAN v. VASUDEVAN
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
application is allowed impleading the petitioner herein
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. I r. 10
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. When already 35 persons are already on the party array and when the petitioner is contending W.P.(C).No.28250 of 2005 :: 2 :: that he is one among the legal representatives of the four founders of the school, necessarily, he has a locus standi to…
Judgment
BY ADV. SRI.BABY JOSEPH (B.JOSE) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD 24/01/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 28250 of 2005 6 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DTD. 17.06.05 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER I RULE 10 OF C.P.C. BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRL.SUBORDINATE JUDGE, KOLLAM. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF PRL.SUBORDINATE JUDGE, DTD. 10.08.05 IN I.A.NO.1546/05 IN O.S.NO.467/96/ RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //true copy// P.S. To Judge sk/- K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.28250 of 2005 K -------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of January, 2007. JUDGMENT Abdul Gafoor, J. The first respondent initiated proceedings claiming some declaratory right over the property where a school is situated. The property was originally owned by four persons. In the suit, almost three dozen persons are impleaded as defendants, who include the legal representatives of founders of the school. The petitioner, is one among the legal representatives of one among the four founders so impleaded. That is rejected by the trial court stating that, if at all any relief is granted, that will not be binding on the petitioner. Ext.P2 is the order in that regard. It is challenged in this writ petition.
#2. When already 35 persons are already on the party array and when the petitioner is contending W.P.(C).No.28250 of 2005 :: 2 :: that he is one among the legal representatives of the four founders of the school, necessarily, he has a locus standi to get himself impleaded. There was no reason to court out him. Accordingly, Ext.P2 is set aside and Ext.P1 application is allowed impleading the petitioner herein as an additional defendant. The trial court shall carry out the necessary amendment. Writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- (K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR , J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.28250 of 2005 K JUDGMENT 24th January, 2007. ------------------------------------------------
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: application is allowed impleading the petitioner herein
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. I r. 10.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 24 Jan 2007. The bench was K A ABDUL GAFOOR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.