Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 14236
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.SOMARAJAN, J
ABU – Appellant
Versus
ASIYA@AYISHA – Respondent
OP(C) 3403 2018
R.SREEHARI, SRI.SACHIN VYAS, SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR
A total stranger cannot join a suit as an additional defendant without the plaintiff's consent, except under specific provisions of the CPC.
Headnote:
Impleadment - Suit - CPC Order 1 Rule 10 - The court dismissed a petition challenging the dismissal of an impleadment application, emphasizing that a total stranger cannot enter the suit without the plaintiff's permission, except under specific circumstances outlined in the CPC.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff in a partition suit sought to be impleaded as an additional defendant. The Munsiff’s Court dismissed the application, ruling that a stranger could not join the suit without the plaintiff's consent unless conditions in Order 1 Rule 8 are met.
Issues: Whether a total stranger can be permitted to join a suit as an additional defendant without the plaintiff's consent under the provisions of the CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, a stranger cannot be impleaded in a suit without the plaintiff's endorsement, barring exceptions outlined in specific rules.
Final Decision: The Original Petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Exhibit P14 order dated 12.10.2018 passed by the Munsiff’s Court, Ottapalam is under challenge in this Original Petition. The said application was filed by the plaintiff in another suit for paritition, to get himseslf impleaded as a party to the present suit i.e., as an additional defendant.
2. The impleadment application will not come under the purview of Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. But, a total stranger sought to implead as a party to the suit and that was dismissed by the Munsiffif’s court as per Exhibit P14. No one can enter appearance in a suit so as to get himself impleaded as additional defendant, unless it is permitted by the plaintiff except in a case which would fall under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC.
Hence, this Original Petition is dismissed.
sd/- P. SOMARAJAN, JUDGE.
Rv APPENDIX OF OP(C) 3403/2018 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF PLAINT IN OS.NO, 275/2015 OF MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPALAM.
EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN OS.NO, 275/2015 OF MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPALAM.
EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.NO, 479/2013 OF MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPALALM.
EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF AFFIDAVIT FILED IN SUPPORT OF IA
2303/2015 IN O.S.NO, 479/2013 OF MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPALAM.
EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOCOPY OF PURCHASE CERTIFICATE NO 5466/77 DATED 16.11.1977 OF LAND TRIBUNAL , OTTAPALAM.
EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOCOPY OF AFFIDAVIT AND APPLICATION IA
358/2018 IN OS.NO, 275/2015 OF MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPALAM.
EXHIBIT P7 PHOTOCOPY OF AFFIDAVIT AND APPLICATION IN.359/2018 IN OS.NO, 275/2015 OF MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPALAM.
EXHIBIT P8 PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED IN IA.358/2018 IN O.S.NO, 275/2015 OF MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPALAM BY IST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION FIELD BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN IA.359/2018 IN OS.NO, 275/2015 OF MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPALAM.
EXHIBIT P10 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED IN IA.358/2018 AND 359/2018 IN OS.NO, 275/2015 OF MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPALAM DATED 07.2.2018.
EXHIBIT P11 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(C)NO, 546/2018 OF THIS COURT DATED 26.2.2018.
EXHIBIT P12 PHOTOCOPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED IN SUPPORT OF IA.969/2018 IN OS.NO, 275/2015 OF MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPALAM WITH LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED.
EXHIBIT P13 PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN IA. 969/2018 IN OS.275/2015 OF MUNSIFF COURT,OTTAPALAM.
EXHIBIT P14 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN IA.969/2018 IN OS.NO, 275/2018 OF MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPALAM DATED 12.10.2018.
