Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 40211
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1943 OP(C) NO. 2171 OF 2021 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN IA 1094/2020 IN OS 536/2018 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM PETITIONER/S:
MOHANACHANDRAN NAIR AGED 68 YEARS S/O. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, PRATHIBHA, NEELESWARAM P.O
691 505 KOTTARAKARA BY ADV M.RAJESH RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE SECRETARY KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, PATTOM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004
2 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER K.S.E.B SUB DIVISION, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, KOTTARACKARA P.O, KOLLAM DIST 691 506
3 M K THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 61 YEARS S/O. NARAYANAN PILLAI, KEDARAM, PADINJATTINKARA MURI, KOTTARACKARA P.O, KOLLAM (DISTRICT) 691 506 OTHER PRESENT:
SC FOR KSEB SUDHEER GANESH KUMAR THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
V.G.ARUN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
OP(C).No. 2171 of 2021 -----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2021
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the 1st plaintiff in O.S.No.536 of 2018 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Kottarakkara and is aggrieved by the order in I.A.No.1094 of 2020 in O.S.No.536 of 2018, whereby the court allowed an application for impleading filed by the 3rd respondent. The essential facts are as under;
The suit is instituted by the petitionr along with his father-in-law Chellappan Pillai against the KSEB and its Assistant Executive Engineer seeking to restrain the defendants from installing a transformer in the road in front of the petitioner's property. The specific case of the petitioner is that the transformer was installed years back outside the property of the 3rd respondent and at the instance of the 3rd respondent, KSEB is planning to shift and install the transformer outside the petitioner's property.
2. On coming to know about the suit and the possibility of a decree being passed against him, 3rd respondent filed an application for impleading under Order I Rule 10 CPC. The said application stands allowed by Exhibit P5 order, the trial court having found the 3rd respondent to be a proper party.
3. Advocate M.Rajesh, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the plaintiff being the dominus litis is entitled to decide as to who should be arrayed as parties. According to the learned counsel, the prayer in the suit is only for an injunction restraining the KSEB from installing the transformer outside the petitioner's property.
4. Order I Rule 10 of CPC enables the court to implead any person, on finding that such person is either a necessary or proper party. As far as the instant case is concerned, 3rd respondent, who will be affected by the transformer being retained in its present position and even according to the petitioner, the transformer is being shifted at the instance of the 3rd respondent. As such, the trial court was justified in holding that the 3rd respondent is a proper party. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
In the result, the original petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN, JUDGE
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2171/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO.
536/2018 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTACKARA.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND DEFENDANT (I.E 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN) BEFORE THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTARACKARA Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A NO. 1094/2020 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT HEREIN BEFORE THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTARACKARA IN OS
536/2018 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE EXHIBIT P3 INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDERS OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTARACKARA DATED 22-07-2021 IN I.A NO. 1094/2020 IN OS NO. 536/2018
