IMPORTANT POINT
A person with a direct interest in the subject matter of a suit has the right to be impleaded as a party, ensuring that all relevant issues can be fully adjudicated.

JUDGMENT :

Viju Abraham, J.

Above original petition is filed challenging Ext.P6 order passed in I.A. No.7 of 2023 in O.S. No.336 of 2021 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kattappana, wherein the request of the petitioner for impleadment as additional 2nd defendant in the suit has been declined.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the original petition are as follows:-

O.S. No.336/2021 on the files of Munsiff Court, Kattappana is filed by the 1st respondent as plaintiff seeking a decree restraining the 2nd respondent/defendant i.e. Kattappana Municipality from trespassing into the schedule property or from dismantling or destroying the building therein or from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application as I.A. No.7/2023 seeking to get himself impleaded as additional 2nd defendant.

3. The specific contention of the petitioner is that injunction is sought against the local authority by stating incorrect facts. Petitioner would contend that as per the averment in the plaint, eviction notices were issued by the local authority earlier also, against which the plaintiff has moved this Court filing WP(C) No.5772 of 2017, and obtained stay of the proceedings and the said stay order granted is still in force. It is further contended in the plaint that in spite of the stay order granted by this Court, the southern boundary holder who is an influential person who is impleaded as the 6th respondent in the writ petition is influencing the Government officials and making all possible ways and means to somehow dispossess the plaintiff from the schedule property. It is as part of the said conspiracy the defendant had issued provisional order dated 29.10.2021 against the plaintiff. Petitioner would further contend that the 6th respondent in WP(C) No.5772/2017 and the southern boundary holder of the schedule property referred to in the plaint is none other than the petitioner herein, which could be revealed from a perusal of Ext.P2 judgment in WP(C) No.5772/2017. The petitioner would also submit that though it is averred in the plaint that the interim order granted in WP(C) 5772/2017 is still in force, the said writ petition was heard and dismissed as per Ext.P2 judgment.

4. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent local authority is not seriously prosecuting the suit with a view to favour the plaintiff who is the 1st respondent herein and that the local authority who is the defendant in the suit was set ex-parte and has not filed any written statement. It is in the said circumstance that the petitioner filed Ext.P3 application as I.A. No.7 of 2023 to get himself impleaded as additional defendant No.2 in the original suit. The specific contention of the petitioner is that the construction which has been effected in the schedule property is in clear violation of the distance rule prescribed for effecting construction upon properties adjacent to National Highway/State Highway/major District roads in the State. In Ext.P3 petition it is also brought to the notice that the petitioner is the 6th respondent in WP(C) No.5772/2017, and it is on the application/representation submitted by him that the present order was passed which is challenged in the present suit filed as O.S. No.336/2021, and in view of the above, he has a direct subsisting interest in the suit and therefore sought for impleadment as additional defendant in the suit.

5. To Ext P3 application seeking impleadment, objections were filed as Exts.P4 and P5 by the 1st respondent plaintiff as well as the 2nd respondent Municipality taking a contention that the dispute is purely between the plaintiff and the defendant Municipality. The Munsiff Court, Kattappana considered the petition and passed Ext.P6 order dismissing the petition seeking impleadment in the suit. The reason for issuing Ext.P6 order rejecting the request of the petitioner is that he has got no direct