Dated, this the 23rd day of February 2024 The petitioner herein is the 1st defendant in the suit, O.S.No.85/2011, pending before the Sub Court Mavelikkara. Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5 order, which allowed an impleadment sought for by the plaintiff in the suit, who is the first respondent herein.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, originally the suit was one for specific performance of a contract, entered into by and between the plaintiff and a company. Without arraying the company as a defendant, the suit was filed against defendants 1 and 2. Pending litigation, the second defendant passed away. The plaintiff filed an application to implead the legal heirs of the 2nd defendant. This was objected to by the petitioner/1st defendant, pointing out that the company ought to have been made a party in the suit and that impleading the legal heirs of the 2nd defendant will not suffice. Sidelining that objection, the impleading petition was allowed by the Sub Court Mavelikkara. Challenging the said order, the present petitioner approached this court by filing an Original Petition, which culminated in Ext.P2 judgment. In Ext.P2, the contention of the present petitioner was accepted, the order of the Sub Court, Mavelikkkara permitting impleadment was set aside and the case was remanded to the trial court. Thereupon, the plantiff, who is the first respondent herein, filed an application to implead the company as an additional defendant. This is seriously objected by the first defendant in the suit. Ignoring such objection, Ext.P5 order has been passed allowing the impleadment, which is grossly illegal, is the submission made by the petitioner.

3. Having heard the cousel for the petitioner, this court finds little merit in the instant Original Petition. This court notice that the contention of the present petitioner /1st defendant before this court in the earlier round of the litigation, which culminated in Ext.P2 judgment was that, an application for impleadment of the legal heirs of the 2nd defendant by itself is not sufficient; instead the company ought to have been impleaded, in as much as the agreement was by and between the petitioner and the company. It is only in recognition of that contention that the earlier order of the Sub Judge, Mavelikkara was set aside and Ext. P2 judgment was passed, remanding the matter to the Sub Court for consideration afresh. In the light of that contention raised by the present petitioner therein, the first respondent/plaintiff filed an application for impleadment of the company. Now, the plaintiff cannot be heard to contend that such impleadment cannot be allowed, since, it is made only in accord with the objection raised by the present petitioner in the earlier round.

In the circumstances, challenge against Ext.P5 cannot be sustained and the same would stand repelled. Consequently, the Original Petition will also stand dismissed.