Kerala High Court
D.Madusudhanan vs Iims Sankalpa Charitable Trust on 2 July, 2012
Author: V.Chitambaresh
Bench: V.Chitambaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/13TH AGRAHAYANA 1934
OP(C).No. 4125 of 2012 ()
-------------------------
OS.51/2007 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA
PETITIONER(S)/2ND RESPNDENT:
-----------------
D.MADUSUDHANAN, AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. DAMODARAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR
M/S. SABARI INTERIORS, CHETTIKULANGARA, MAVELIKKARA
ALAPPUZHA-690 106.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN
SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR
SRI.K.JAGADEESH
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:
-------------------------
IIMS SANKALPA CHARITABLE TRUST
REGISTRATION NO. DL1/4830/2808 OF 2006
REPRESENTED BY TRUSTEE G. THAMPY
S/O. GOVINDAN, REGIONAL OFFICE, L.P. ROAD
MOONAMKUTTY, RESIDING AT VALAKKOTTU VEETTIL
MAYADITHURA MURI, BHARANIKKAVU VILLAGE-690503.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-12-2012,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX IN O.P.(C) NO.4125 OF 2012
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
EXT.P1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE I.A. NO. 321 OF 2012 IN O.S. NO.
51/2007 9-2-2012.
EXT.P2 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER
HEREIN TO THE I.A. DATED 2-7-2012.
EXT.P3 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO. 321 OF 2012
DATED 3-8-2012.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE.
V.CHITAMBARESH, J.
-------------------------------
O.P.(C) No. 4125 OF 2012
-------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of December, 2012
J U D G M E N T
The court below has by the order impugned permitted the institution by name IIMS Detectives Pvt. Ltd. to be impleaded as the second plaintiff. It is stated that the said institution is run by the first plaintiff by name IIMS Sankalp Charitable Trust. The institution run by the Trust has entered into contract with the defendants. The contract pertained to gladding and glazing works of a building.
2. The petitioner/second defendant impugn the order of impleadment on the following grounds:-
i) The remedy of the second plaintiff institution has become barred by limitation.
ii) The Manager has no authority to represent the second plaintiff institution.
3. It is enough if the bar of limitation is framed as one among the many issues in the suit. A reference in this connection to the decision in Ragu Thilak D.John v. S.Rayappan [2001 (2) SCC 472) is apposite. Similarly the authority of the Manager to O.P.4125/2012 2 represent the second plaintiff institution can also be decided in the suit. I confirm the impleadment leaving open other issues to be tried in the suit.
4. The petitioners finally contend that two other connected suits are pending on the file of the same court. It is also stated that they intend to move for joint trial of all the three suits. I therefore defer the trial of O.S.No.51 of 2007 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Mavelikara by two months. This is to enable the petitioner to work out his remedy as above.
No further directions are called for the original petition is disposed of.
V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.
nj.