OP(C). No.1411 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. Jayachandran
Judgment Date: 2023-12-12
Court Decision / Holding: OP(C) No.1411 of 2023 is dismissed; Ext.P5 is upheld; the petitioner is not entitled to impleadment as additional defendant No.11. The Munsiff’s Court Taliparamba is directed to proceed with the trial promptly.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

YESODA K. M.

Respondents

KADAN THAYALE PULUKKOOL KRISHNAN NAIR
KERALA STATE REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR KANNUR
THAHASILDAR TALIPARAMBA TALUK
VILLAGE OFFICER MORAZHA
KADAN MEETHALE VEETTIL RAJAN (DIED)
KADAN MEETHALE VEETTIL THAMBAN
KADAN MEETHALE VEETTIL KRISHNAN NAIR
KADAN MEETHALE PULUKKOOL VALSAN
KADAN MEETHALE VEETTIL NARAYANAN
KADAN MEETHALE VEETTIL KAMALAKSHI AMMA

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Mathew KuriaKose
• G. Gireesh
• K. R. Arun
• T. G. Sunil (Perumbavoor)
• J. Krishna Kumar (Adoor)
• C. N. Prakash

Counsels for Respondents

• P. B. Krishnan

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petition concerns OP(C) No.1411 of 2023 before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, challenging an order dismissing the petitioner’s application for impleadment as additional defendant No.11 in O.S. No.24/2018, pending before the Munsiff’s Court, Taliparamba. Yesoda K.M., the petitioner, asserts an interest in the property through her membership in the Chirakkutty Puthiyakavu tharavadu within the Kadan Meethale Veedu family. She sought impleadment under Order I, Rule 10(2) CPC (read as Order I, Rule 8) to enable protection of her rights, arguing the property belongs to a trust and that the members of three families constitute the beneficiaries. The trial court’s Ext.P5 order dismissed the petition. The High Court heard the matter and found no compelling reason to permit impleadment at this stage since the matter was slated for trial, and the existing parties were capable of protecting the petitioner’s interests. The court referred to the principle in Balaram Palai v. Collector, Puri (AIR 1994 Orissa 21) that an addition should be allowed only if necessary and prejudice or lack of representation is demonstrated. It emphasized time-bound disposal directives and directed the trial court to proceed with trial. Ultimately, the Original Petition was dismissed and Ext.P5 upheld, directing prompt trial.” ,

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Civil Procedure, Order I Rule 10(2)Code of Civil Procedure, Order I Rule 8

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Im impleadment under Order I Rule 8 CPC when necessary to protect a party’s interest
A party seeking impleadment must demonstrate prejudice or lack of protection by existing parties; reliance on precedent such as Balaram Palai v. Collector, Puri (AIR 1994 Orissa 21) that mere late-stage impleading is not warranted

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends she has an interest as a member of the Chirakkutty Puthiyakavu tharavadu, part of the Kadan Meethale Veedu family, and seeks impleadment under Order I, Rule 8 (read with 10(2)) to safeguard her rights in the suit property, which is alleged to be held in trust by family members. She argues publication under Order I, Rule 8 is warranted given the nature of the reliefs and the trust character of the property.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent opposes impleadment, arguing the suit is already at trial and the petitioner’s interests are being protected by parties already in the array. It is contended that there is no prejudice or necessity for adding the petitioner and the matter has been the subject of earlier orders and time-bound disposal directives.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Balaram Palai and Others v. Collector, Puri and Ors.	AIR 1994 Orissa 21	Positive	The court relied on the dictum from this case to hold that impleadment should be refused unless necessary to protect a party’s interest and where existing parties adequately represent that interest.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1945** **OP(C) NO. 1411 OF 2023** **IN OS NO.24/2018 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, THALIPARAMBA** ## **PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT NO.11 SOUGHT TO BE** ## **IMPLEADED:** YESODA K. M., AGED 86 YEARS, W/O. KUNHIRAMAN E. N., KADAN MEETHALE VEEDU, BHAGAVATH SINGH ROAD, IRINAVU P.O., CHERUKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN–670301. BY ADVS. MATHEW KURIAKOSE G.GIREESH K.R.ARUN T.G.SUNIL (PERUMBAVOOR) J.KRISHNAKUMAR (ADOOR) C.N.PRAKASH ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT NOS.1 TO 10:** 1 KADAN THAYALE PULUKKOOL KRISHNAN NAIR AGED 84 YEARS, S/O. PARVATHY AMMA, ANCHAMPEEDIKA P.O., KALLYASSERY AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670331. 2 KERALA STATE REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR KANNUR, CIVIL STATION, KANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670001. 3 THAHASILDAR TALIPARAMBA TALUK, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR, PIN – 670141. 4 VILLAGE OFFICER MORAZHA, KANUL P.O., KANNUR, PIN – 670564. 5 KADAN MEETHALE VEETTIL RAJAN (DIED), KANNUR, PIN – 670301. 6 KADAN MEETHALE VEETTIL THAMBAN AGED 77 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN, AGRICULTURIST, IRINAVU P.O., KALYASSERI AMSOM, IRINAVU DESOM, NEAR IRINAVU MAIN ROAD, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670301. 7 KADAN MEETHALE VEETTIL KRISHNAN NAIR AGED 79 YEARS, S/O. KALYANI, NR. TRICHAMBARAM TEMPLE, P.O. TALIPARMBA, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR, PIN – 670141. **O.P.(C).NO.1411 of 2023** ..2.. 8 KADAN MEETHALE PULUKKOOL VALSAN, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN, NR. PATTUVAM SERVICE CO. OP.BANK, PARAPPOOL BRANCH, ARIYIL P.O., TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR, PIN – 670353. 9 KADAN MEETHALE VEETTIL NARAYANAN S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 76 YEARS, S.N. NIVAS, PALIYATHUVALAPPU, MORAZHA, MOTTAMMAL S O, KANUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670331. 10 KADAN MEETALE VEETTIL KAMALAKSHI AMMA W/O. E.N. NARAYANAN, AGED 74 YEARS, K.N. NIVAS, ANCHAMPEEDIKA, MOTTAMMAL S O, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670331. 11 ANIL KUMAR, K. M S/O. KUNJAN NAIR, AGED 59 YEARS, ANUGRAHA, P.O. MORAZHA, KOOLICHAL, MOTTAMMAL, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670331. BY ADVS. ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL R.PRADEEP KUMAR A.K.SANTHOSH(S-191) P.B.KRISHNAN(K/1193/1994) THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **O.P.(C).NO.1411 of 2023** **==> picture [37 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## _**Dated this the 12[th] day of December, 2023**_ **The petitioner herein sought himself to be impleaded as additional defendant No.11 in the suit, O.S.No.24/2018, pending before the Munsiff's Court, Taliparamba. However, his application, vide I.A.No.11/2023, was dismissed by Ext.P5 order, which is under challenge in this Original Petition.** **2. Heard Sri.Mathew Kuriakose, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.P.B. Krishnan, learned counsel for the 1[st] /contesting respondent.** ## **3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person interested in** **O.P.(C).NO.1411 of 2023** **==> picture [37 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **opposing the suit reliefs and hence filed Ext.P3 application seeking impleadment. The said application is one filed under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C., which the learned counsel would, however, request this Court to read it as one under Order I, Rule 8(3). Learned counsel would point out that the property in question actually belongs to a Trust, the members of which are consisted of three families. Earlier, an impleadment was sought for by a person, which was dismissed by the trial court. In O.P.(C) No.656/2022, this Court frowned upon the observations of the trial court that the persons who are in the party array would take care of the interest of the petitioner therein and allowed the said impleading application, with an observation that a publication under Order I, Rule 8 is required, having regard to the nature of the suit and the reliefs sought for. Accordingly, Order I, Rule 8 publication was effected on 20.02.2022 in** **O.P.(C).NO.1411 of 2023** **==> picture [37 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **respect of a suit which was filed in the year 2018. The petitioner filed Ext.P3 application on 21.06.2023 seeking impleadment. However, for reasons akin to that found by the trial court for dismissing the impleading petition above referred - which led to O.P.(C) No.656/2022 - the present application is also dismissed, vide Ext.P5. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner herein is also a necessary party, who deserves to be impleaded in the suit.** **4. This Original Petition was seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent, the plaintiff in the suit and the contesting respondent herein. Learned counsel would point out that the application was preferred at the time when the suit was listed for trial. It is also pointed out that this is suit, to which a time bound disposal has been directed by this Court in the year 2021. On merits, it was pointed out that** **O.P.(C).NO.1411 of 2023** **==> picture [37 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **so long as the interest which is sought to be protected by the petitioner is already taken care of by those who are in the party array, an application for impleadment under Order I, Rule 8 is not liable to be allowed on the mere asking. The requirement to be satisfied is that the persons who are already in the party array is acting prejudicially to the interest of the applicant, or atleast a reason akin to such a prejudicial acting by the person on record. This requirement is not satisfied herein, is the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent.** **5. Having heard learned counsel appearing on both sides, this Court finds little merit in the instant Original Petition. This Court takes note of two aspects in Ext.P3 application for impleadment. The first aspect is that there is an allegation in paragraph No.3 of the petition that** **O.P.(C).NO.1411 of 2023** **==> picture [37 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **the petitioner's rights as a member of 'Chirakkutty Puthiyakavu' - which stems from her capacity as a family member of 'Kadan Meethale Veedu' - is suppressed in the plaint. Another allegation is that, an earlier suit filed by one Gopalan Nair as O.S. No.156/1978, seeking partition, was dismissed, affirming the trust character of the property, wherefore, the reliefs now sought for is not liable to be allowed. A perusal of Ext.P1 plaint would indicate that the above allegations are not correct. In paragraph No.3 of the plaint, it is specifically averred that the property in question belong to the 'tharavadu', wherein members of 'Kadan Meethale Pulukkool' family, 'Kadan Meethale' family and the 'tharavadu' to which the plaintiff belongs has rights. That apart, in paragraph No.4, there is specific reference to dismissal of O.S. No.156/1978. Besides, this Court ascertained from the counsel as to whether any of the defendants,** **O.P.(C).NO.1411 of 2023** **==> picture [37 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **now in the party array, represents the 'Kadan Meethale' Veedu, to which the petitioner belongs. Learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent would answer that defendant Nos.4,6,7,8 and 9 are members of the said family. This aspect is found by the learned trial Judge in the impugned Ext.P5 order.** **6. In the circumstances, this Court finds no specific reason to allow the impleading sought for, especially in view of the fact that the same is sought for, when the matter was posted for trial. A perusal of Ext.P5 impugned order would indicate that the case was, in fact, listed for trial thrice. This Court finds no specific cause to be espoused by the petitioner, so as to allow her impleadment. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent in Balaram Palai and Others v. Collector, Puri and Ors. [AIR 1994 Orissa 21] is on all fours. As per the dictum laid down, this Court is not satisfied that the** **O.P.(C).NO.1411 of 2023** **==> picture [37 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **interest of the petitioner is not being taken care of by the persons who are already on record, or for that matter, a reason akin to that to such prejudicial acting.** **In the circumstances, this Original Petition fails and the same will stand dismissed. It is ordered that in view of the directions already issued by this Court for a time bound disposal, learned Munsiff will make every endeavour to list the matter for trial immediately and dispose of the same.** ## **Sd/-** **C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE** Skk//22.12.2023 **O.P.(C).NO.1411 of 2023** ..10.. ## **APPENDIX OF OP(C) NO.1411/2023** ## **' - PETITIONER S EXHIBITS:** |EXHIBIT P|1|TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.| |---|---|---| |||24/2018 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF'S| |||COURT, TALIPARAMBA| |EXHIBIT P|2|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED| |||20.07.2022 IN O.P(C) NO. 656 OF 2022 OF| |||THIS HON'BLE COURT| |EXHIBIT P|3|TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND| |||APPLICATION IN I.A. NO. 11 OF 2023 IN| |||O.S. NO. 24/2018 ON THE FILES OF THE| |||MUNSIFF'S COURT, TALIPARAMBA| |EXHIBIT P|4|TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT| |||FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN IN| |||I.A. NO. 11 OF 2023 IN O.S. NO. 24/2018| |||ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT,| |||TALIPARAMBA| |EXHIBIT P|5|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.07.2023| |||IN I.A. NO. 11 OF 2023 IN O.S. NO.| |||24/2018 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF'S| |||COURT, TALIPARAMBA|