Kerala High Court
Ramakrishnan vs A.P.Sundharan on 5 August, 2009
Author: S.S.Satheesachandran
Bench: S.S.Satheesachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22141 of 2009(O)
1. RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. A.P.SUNDHARAN, EXCISE DEPARTMENT
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :05/08/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C).NO.22141 OF 2009 (O)
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of August, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
i. to call for records relating to Exts.P1 to P5;
ii. to set aside Ext.P5, it may be ordered that no additional person is required to be impleaded as additional defendants in the suit and it may be declared that the suit is not bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties and iii. to pass such others and further orders as are deemed fit and necessary in the interests of justice.
2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.557 of 2004 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Chittur and the respondent is the defendant. Suit originally filed for a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction was later amended to have a decree for fixing of the boundaries. As per the amended plaint, the WPC.22141/09 2 plaintiff set forth a case that the defendant has common boundaries with him on the east, south and west of the plaint schedule properties which consist of two items. The defendant in his written statement among other contentions resisted the reliefs claimed in the suit contending that the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties in as much as the property holders having common boundaries on the east, south and the west, were not impleaded in the suit. Among other issues cast for adjudication in the suit, an issue as to whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties was also raised by the court. That issue was considered as a preliminary issue and after examining the pleadings of the parties and hearing the counsel on both sides, the court below formed a conclusion that the other property owners on the east, south and west of the plaint schedule properties are also necessary parties to adjudicate the disputes raised in the suit for fixing of the boundaries on those sides claimed by the plaintiff in the suit. Ext.P5 is the copy of that order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P5 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this WPC.22141/09 3 Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented with reference to Ext.P5 order impugned in the petition, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary and, hence, it is dispensed with.
4. Perusing Ext.P5 order, I find no impropriety or illegality in the conclusion formed by the court. Taking note of the relief claimed for fixing the boundaries on the east, south and west of the plaint schedule properties the property owners having common boundaries on those sides are necessary parties. Submission made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that there is dispute with respect to those boundaries with such property owners and so much so, they are not necessary parties in the given facts of the case cannot be accepted on its face value. The adjudication of disputes relating to the fixing of the common boundaries on the three sides of the plaint schedule properties can be proceeded only WPC.22141/09 4 impleading those property holders. Without identifying the plaint property no fixing of the boundaries as desired by the plaintiff can be granted, and in fixing of the boundary, fixation of a portion in which the plaintiff is having common boundary with the defendant alone will not be possible. There is no merit in the writ petition, and, hence, it is dismissed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp