JACOB Vs. JOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants in O.S.771/94 on the file of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Irinjalakuda are the petitioners in this revision petition. They challenge the order passed by the learned Munsiff in I.A. 1589/95 filed in the suit. Petitioners in LA. 1589/95 filed before the court below who are respondents 1 and 2 in this revision petition filed caveat. When the revision petition came up for admission, I heard counsel appearing on either side in detail. I am disposing of the revision petition.

(2.) Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are owners of three plots' of land through which defendants intend to lay a pathway. It was to prevent the defendants from cutting open a pathway across their property they approached to court with the suit. Pending the suit, plaintiffs 1 and 2 withdrew from the suit as per Order in I.A. 186/95 with liberty to file fresh suit. Subsequently they want to get themselves impleaded as additional plaintiffs and to continue the suit in respect of properties owned by them as well.

(3.) O.1 R.10(2) inter alia states that the court may at any stage of the proceedings join any person whether as plaintiff or defendant. It also provides that any person can be joined in the suit if his presence before the court is necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. This means that the court can join any person in the suit only if it is found that his presence before the court is necessary in order to enable the court to effectively arid completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions raised in the suit. As stated earlier, in the instant case, three plaintiffs joined together to protect their respective properties from trespass threatened by defendants in the suit. Each one of the plaintiff has got a separate cause of action as against the defendants. It was under such a situation, plaintiffs 1 and 2 wanted to get out of the suit and they did infact got out. This shows that they did not want to have the dispute in relation to their properties adjudicated upon in the suit. After their withdrawal from the suit the suit in relation to the property belonging to the third plaintiff was being proceeded with. In that suit the dispute between the third plaintiff on the one hand and the defendants on the other in relation to the property belonging to the third plaintiff can be effectively and completely adjudicated upon. For such an adjudication, the presence of plaintiffs 1 and 2 who have no manner of right over the property owned by the third plaintiff is not necessary. This being the factual position, the court below was clearly in error in allowing the petitioners in I.A, 1589/95 to get themselves impleaded as additional plaintiffs. These additional plaintiffs have separate causes of action against the defendants in relation to their properties over which the third plaintiff has no manner of right.