IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1947 OP(C) NO. 2556 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.08.2023 IN OS NO.199 OF

2020 OF MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTHAMANGALAM PETITIONER/PETITIONER/3RD DEFENDANT SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED:

M.S SASI AGED 62 YEARS, MAVILACHALIL HOUSE, KEERAMPARA P.O, PUNNEKKADU, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686 681.

BY ADVS.

SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH SMT.AKHILASREE BHASKARAN SHRI.ANTONY NIKHIL REMELO RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS:

1 K.M SUNNY AGED 60 YEARS KURUMBATH HOUSE, CHELAD P.O, PINDIMANA VILLAGE , PINDIMANA KARA , KOTHAMANGALAM , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686681

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM , COLLECTORATE , KAKKANADU , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 682030

3 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD ROAD SUB DIVISION, KOTHAMANGALAM ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 686691 BY ADVS.

SRI.SAJI MATHEW SHRI.DEEPU ANIL THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

11.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the trial court, dismissing the impleading application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for respondents 2 & 3 and the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent filed a suit against the other respondents for declaration of the injunction in respect of schedule property and the matter is pending before the Civil Court in OS No.199 of 2020, the petitioner filed IA for impleading himself as an additional defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which came to be dismissed. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial court has committed error in dismissing the application. The respondent No.1 filed suit for declaring the property in use and encroached by him as his property. Though, Ext.P3 order dated 07.02.2020 passed by this Court in WPC No.28748 of 2019 directing the District Collector to demolish the encroachment and in spite of the same, the trial court granted status quo order over the schedule property in October 2020, in spite of the direction issued by the High Court. The said order has not been challenged by the State and hand in glow with the plaintiff. Therefore, the petitioner being a resident of the said area is a necessary and proper party to the suit, hence he filed application for impleading before the trial court, but the trial court was dismissed the same which is not correct.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the suit is filed against the other defendants for prohibitory injunction, while the petitioner is not a necessary and proper party to the said suit. It is also contended by the counsel that even the 3rd party filed a contempt petition before this court, alleging that the District Collector not complied the direction of this Court passed in writ petition and the court already disposed of the contempt petition, where in the list of properties were mentioned by the District Collector excluding the property of the plaintiff/respondent No.1. Such being the case, the suit is filed against some other persons including the stay, this petitioner is not a necessary party for impleading in the case. Therefore, prayed for dismissing this petition.

6. The learned Government Pleader also submits that the suit is filed against the respondent/State and they are contesting the matter before the trial court, and already direction given to the Deputy Collector, who has already started for complying the order of the High Court, passed in the writ petition. Such being the case, this petitioner is not a necessary party in the suit, hence praye