N K SASIDHARAN Vs. REMANI GOPALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above two writ petitions are filed by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 1189/2008 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam. Suit was one for injunction. Respondents in both the writ petitions are the same but they have been serially numbered differently in the two writ petitions. They are referred to hereafter as per the number shown in W. P. (C ). No. 635/2009. Suit was instituted by the petitioner for a perpetual prohibitory injunction as against the 2nd and 3rd respondents alone as the defendants, to restrain them from dispossessing him from the suit property. Ext. P3 in that writ petition is the copy of the plaint. In the suit, petitioner/plaintiff claimed title over 7. 392 cents of land in resurvey No. 919/1 and 919/2 in Ernakulam Village, pursuant to a court sale and delivery in a previous suit filed by him as O. S. No. 272/2007 as against one Gopalan Nair, the husband of the 1st respondent in that writ petition. That suit was one for specific performance and the defendant in that suit remained ex-parte, consequently, an ex-parte decree was granted in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff and pursuant to that decree in execution he got a sale deed executed through the court and obtained delivery of the property. After coming into possession of the property, the case of the petitioner is that there was intimidation and threat of dispossession by the 2nd and 3rd respondents, Government officials, on the premise that the property was already under attachment for sales tax arrears due from Gopalan nair, the previous owner of the property. Apprehending dispossession by the government officials, 2nd and 3rd respondents in that writ petition, impleading them as defendants, Ext. P3 suit for injunction was laid by the petitioner/plaintiff. In the suit, the 1st respondent moved an application for impleadment as additional defendant and the learned Munsiff after hearing both sides allowed that application under Ext. P6 order. Correctness of Ext. P6 order is impeached in W. P. (C ). No. 635/2009 by the petitioner/plaintiff in the suit. Petitioner has also moved another application before the trial court after settling of the issues, for including two more issues as arising for adjudication in the suit. One among that issues sought to be added related to the question whether by impleadment of the 1st respondent as additional 3rd defendant in the suit there was mis jointer of parties. The learned counsel after hearing both sides partly allowed the application but declined the request made by the petitioner/plaintiff to frame an issue on the question whether by the impleadment of 1st respondent as additional 3rd defendant in the suit, the suit suffered from misjoinder of parties. Questioning correctness of that order w. P. (C ). No. 14537/2009 has been filed.

(2.) I heard the counsel on both sides.

(3.) THE relief claimed in the suit is only a decree for perpetual prohibitory injunction from dispossession as against the Government officials respondents 2 and 3 and as such the 1st respondent was not at all a necessary/proper party in the suit is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Plaintiff being the master of the suit, his right to seek relief as against the parties from whom alone he apprehends threat of dispossession, cannot be interfered by the court by adding new parties to the suit, according to the learned counsel. Placing reliance on National Spices v. Andhra Bank (1987 (2) KLT 132) it is submitted that the learned Munsiff has not followed the parameters governing impleadment of additional parties in a suit while invoking its powers under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent (additional 3rd defendant in the suit) and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that in the nature of the disputes arising for adjudication in the suit, the presence of 1st respondent as a party in the suit is essential, even if no relief as against her is sought by the plaintiff. The counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that she is the power of attorney holder of her husband and long before the institution of the suit specific performance by the petitioner/plaintiff as against her husband in which he got an ex- parte decree and later obtained delivery of the property through court, there was an attachment over the property towards sales tax arrears due from her husband and it still continues even now. Proceedings have been initiated by her on behalf of her husband as against the recovery of sales tax arrears and that too is stated to be even pending before the appropriate forums. In the nature of the disputes involved if she is not given an opportunity to present her case and government Officials proceeded against, the defendants, alone are permitted to resist the claim of injunction sought by the plaintiff in the suit it may result in adverse decision causing severe hardship and irreparable injury to her, according to the counsel.