Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.
Cheenan Raveendran, S/o. Late Kelu – Appellant
Versus
Sambath, S/o.Late Krishnan – Respondent
OP(C) No. 2285 of 2021
Decided on : 12-09-2025
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The case involves a property dispute where the petitioners sought to implead a third party who is a co-owner of the property, as well as to amend the cause title of the suit (!) .
The petitioners filed applications for impleading and amendment at a late stage of proceedings, after the trial had commenced and the examination of witnesses had begun (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the primary purpose of allowing such amendments and impleadments is to enable complete adjudication of all disputes and to prevent multiplicity of litigation, even if the applications are filed belatedly (!) .
The court noted that the necessity of joining the third party was acknowledged by the opposing side and that the delay was explained by the petitioners, which was considered a sufficient reason to justify the late application (!) .
The court highlighted that the objections based on delay and technicalities should not override the interests of justice, especially when the inclusion of necessary parties would aid in a comprehensive resolution of the dispute (!) .
The orders dismissing the applications for impleadment and amendment were set aside, and the applications were allowed upon the petitioners paying costs, to ensure fairness and justice (!) .
The court underscored that the object of procedural provisions is to facilitate just and effective adjudication, and procedural delays should not hinder the inclusion of necessary parties where it is in the interest of justice (!) (!) .
The case demonstrates the court’s willingness to prioritize substantive justice over procedural technicalities, provided that the parties act bona fide and the interests of justice are served (!) .
Would you like a more detailed analysis or assistance with specific legal implications?
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of original petition and intent for injunction (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. response to the contention of non-joinder of parties (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. explanation for delay in impleading and amending parties (Para 5 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. justification for allowing amendments and impleadment (Para 8 , 14) |
| 5. necessity of parties to enable complete adjudication (Para 12) |
| 6. interests of justice prevail in face of technicalities (Para 13) |
| 7. final disposition and imposition of costs (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT :
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.
This original petition is filed against Exts.P7 and P8 orders respectively in I.A Nos.4 and 5 of 2021 in O.S No.83 of 2016 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Thalassery.
2. The petitioners are plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the supplemental 3rd plaintiff sought to be impleaded in the suit. The suit is filed seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondents herein from trespassing into the plaint schedule properties and also restraining them from widening the existing 4 feet pathway into a motorable road. Ext.P1 is the copy of the plaint.
3. The respondents filed Ext.P2 written statement on 06.06.2016 wherein it is contended, inter alia, that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the supplemental 3rd plaintiff owner of plaint B schedule property has not been made a party to the plaint.
4. The issues were framed in the case in the year 2019 and the first issue framed is whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The second issue framed is regarding whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the plaint schedule properties.
5. The case was posted for trial and the 1st petitioner was examined as PW1. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Ext.P3 application dated 11.10.2021 to implead the 3rd petitioner herein as the supplemental 3rd plaintiff in the suit. The reason that the supplemental 3rd plaintiff did not join as plaintiff at the time of institution of the suit is stated in paragraph No.2 of Ext.P3 affidavit, which reads as follows:-
“2) The above suit is one for Permanent Prohibitory injunction restarting the defendants and their men from trespassing in to the Plaint schedule properties and from widening the existing 4 feet pathway on its southern side in to Motor able road and also to restrained them from obstructing the construction of compound wall on the southern side of the Plaint schedule properties. We say that the 2nd deponent is the co-owner of the Plaint "B" schedule property. We say that the 2nd deponent had already executed a Power of Attorney in the name of 1st Deponent herein in the year 2016 itself authorizing him to contest the case for and on behalf of the 2nd deponent as well. But unfortunately the said Power of Attorney was misplaced for a time being and only traced out recently. So the other Petitioner could not make an application to implead the 2nd deponent herein as a party to the suit.
Now the 2nd deponent is in his native place and she is able to conduct the case for herself. The application to implead the 2nd deponent as a party to the suit earlier was not intentional but only for the reason stated above.”
6. The petitioners also filed Ext.P4 application for amendment of the cause title of the suit by incorporating the name and address of the supplemental 3rd plaintiff consequent to Ext.P3 application.
7. The 2nd respondent herein P6 counter statements to Exts.P3 and P4 applications.
Paragraph No.2 of Exts.P5 and P6 which are in verbatim reads as follows:-
“2. In this connection it is submitted that during the cross examination of PW1 he has admitted that he has no rights over possession of Plaint B Schedule Property. Moreover he has no locus standi to represent Sathi, who is the owner of the property or to file the above impleading the petition in respect of B schedule property.”
It is further contended that the applications are highly belated and if the applications are allowed, the respondents would be put to serious prejudice.
8. The learned Muns
The court permits the impleading of a necessary party and emphasizes complete adjudication on disputes, allowing amendments for justice despite procedural delays.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the addition of a party in a suit should be consistent with the scope of the inquiry necessitated in the pending suit, and the presence of the....
suit relating to property, in order to add a person as a party, he should have a direct interest as distinguished from a commercial interest, in the subject matter of the litigation.
A third-party applicant cannot be impleaded in an injunction suit if their claim is based on unrelated property, reaffirming that such lawsuits are judgments in personam, not in rem.
The court emphasized that a necessary or proper party can only be added if it is essential for effective adjudication and not against the wishes of the dominus litis principle.
The main legal point established is that the appellate court has the discretion to permit the joinder of necessary parties at the appellate stage, as provided under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of ....
The court emphasized that necessary and proper parties must be included for effective adjudication, and the trial court erred in denying the petitioners' impleadment.
A party cannot be impleaded in an ongoing suit against the wishes of the plaintiff unless they are deemed a necessary or proper party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
