SUBHADRA Vs. RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.95/2014 on the file of Munsiff's Court, Ottappalam wherein the respondents herein have been arrayed as the defendants therein. The suit is for partition of plaint B schedule items of property. The plaint schedule properties are stated to be ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and defendants and that the defendants 1 to 6 are in the management of the properties on behalf of the plaintiffs and defendants 7, 8 & 9, according to the plaint averments. The defendants 1 to 6 had contested the suit and they contended that the suit properties were not partitionable. In the written statement submitted by defendants 1 to 3 it was contended that part of the properties had already been assigned from the plaint schedule property to strangers and they reiterated that such assignees were in actual possession of the property. This, according to the petitioners, had drawn out an issue of non-joinder of necessary parties in the suit. This crucial aspect has escaped the notice of the petitioners and necessary steps were not taken to implead the alleged assignees. The assignees concerned are state to be; 1. Mr.Mani, 2. Mr. Rajan, 3. Mr. Udayan and 4. The President, NSS Karayogam. The suit was listed to 12.10.2017. Then an application as per I.A. No.2094/2017 was filed to implead the said assignees who were necessary and proper parties to the suit and another application, I.A. No.2095/2017 was also filed for consequential amendment of the plaint. The above said assignees were sought to be impleaded in the suit as supplemental defendants 10 to 13. Both the applications were opposed by the defendants on the ground of delay and the court below allowed the objections and dismissed the application for impleading and also consequently dismissed the application for amendment. Exts.P7 & P8 are the impugned orders passed by the court below in that regard.

(2.) Petitioners would contend that the impugned orders are illegal and perverse, and the consequential dismissal of the Interlocutory Applications would inevitably lead to multiplicity of litigations which are otherwise avoidable by allowing the application for amendment. These orders at Exts.P7 & P8 which are under challenge in this Original Petition (Civil). The prayers in this Original Petition (Civil) are as follows :

(3.) Heard Sri.P. Jayaram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The main reasons are explained in paragraphs 6 & 7 of Ext.P7 rejection order, which read as follows :