A party seeking to be impleaded in a suit must demonstrate a necessary and shared interest in the subject matter of the suit.

JUDGMENT

The original petition is filed challenging Ext.P9 order passed in IA No.8/2021 in OS No.64/2014 by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Perumbavoor. The petitioner is a third party in the suit. The respondents are the plaintiffs and the defendants before the court below.

2. The relevant antecedent facts, leading to Ext.P9 order, are:

(i) The respondents 1 to 6 have filed the suit against the respondents 7 to 37, under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, 'Code'), to divest the administration of the Chelamattam Devaswom from the Chelamattam Devaswom Bharana Samithi, and vest the administration with the elders of the three Namboothiri families which claim oorayma rights over the scheduled temples and for other consequential reliefs.

(ii) The petitioner has averred in the original petition that Chelamattom Devaswom is owned by three Malayalam Brahmin families named Kippangattu Illam, Thottamattathu Illam and Valiyamkovil Illam, and the Devaswom is to be administered by the eldest male members of the three families.

(iii) The respondents 1 to 6 are the junior members of the three families, who are expected to assent onto the administration of the Devaswom in the future.

(iv) The respondents 1 to 6 have alleged in the plaint that the Valiyamkovil Illam has illegally entrusted the administration of the Devaswom to the 8th respondent Bharana Samithi, which is against the scheme framed by the Court of the Additional District Judge, North Paravoor in OS No.62/1960.

(v) As per the decree, the administration of the Devaswom has to be entrusted with the three families and the Devaswom is only a private trust.

(vi) The petitioner is the Store Keeper of Chelamattam Sreekrishnaswami Temple. He represents the other employees of the Devaswom. The respondents 1 to 6 have not impleaded the workers of the Devaswom Temples as parties in the suit.

(vii) Hence, the petitioner filed IA No.8/2021 (Ext.P6)

to get himself impleaded in the suit. He has also filed a written statement in the suit. The 5th respondent has objected to Ext.P6 application.

(viii) The court below, by the impugned Ext.P9 order, has rejected Ext.P6 application.

(ix) Ext.P9 order is perse illegal and unsustainable in law. Hence, the original petition.

3. Heard; Sri.P.Thomas Geevarghese, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Ajith Viswanathan, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 5, Sri.C.Harikumar, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 26 to 32, Sri.S.Vinod Bhat, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.33 and Sri.G.Rajagopal, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.37.

4. The short point is whether there is any illegality in Ext.P9 order.

5. Ext.P1 plaint is instituted by the respondents 1 to

6, for a declaration that they have a right to manage the Chelamattom Devaswom. The suit is filed after obtaining permission under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code.

6. The petitioner has filed Ext.P6 application to get himself impleaded as the additional defendant in the suit, on the assertion that, he is an employee of a Temple under the Devaswom and is an interested person. But, the respondents 1 to 6 have not impleaded all the interested persons in the suit. The fourth category of persons i.e., the employees of the Devaswom Temples have been conspicuously excluded from the plaint, who are 36 in number and none of them have been impleaded in the suit. The present management of the Temple is a democratic institution, and if it is replaced, it would lead to dictatorship, which in turn would adversely affect the rights of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons. Hence, the petitioner may be impleaded as an additional defendant in the suit.

7. The application was opposed by 5th respondent through Ext.P8 counter statement.

8. The court below, by the impugned Ext.P9 order, rejected Ext.P6 application holding thus:

“7. From the crux of the suit, it can be seen that, suit is with respect to administration