Kerala High Court
Kizhakkankunnath Saidalavi vs Kizhakkamkunnath Koideen Kutty on 2 June, 2010
Author: Thomas P.Joseph
Bench: Thomas P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16981 of 2010(O)
1. KIZHAKKANKUNNATH SAIDALAVI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KIZHAKKAMKUNNATH KOIDEEN KUTTY,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :02/06/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.16981 of 2010
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2010.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner challenges order passed by the learned Munsiff, Tirur on I.A.No.854 of 2010 in O.S.No.188 of 2006 declining to delete issue regarding non-joinder of necessary parties. Petitioner filed the suit seeking to set out a way to the plaint A schedule property through plaint B schedule, the latter belonging to respondent. In the written statement filed by respondent he contended that co-owners of plaint A schedule are necessary parties to the suit. Based on that, an issue was raised as to non-joinder of necessary parties. Thereafter interrogatory was served on the respondent. As stated in the written statement he answered interrogatories stating that plaint A schedule belonged to Kunhumohammed @ Bava and Kunhibeevi Umma, so far as his information goes. Pursuant to the answer to the interrogatories petitioner filed I.A.No.584 of 2010 to delete the issue regarding non-joinder of necessary parties which was disallowed by Ext.P7, order. According to the learned counsel, no issue regarding non-joinder of necessary parties did arise for a decision since petitioner has purchased the property in public auction and it will be wastage of time if parties referred to in the written statement are to be impleaded.
2. It is based on the contention in the written statement that issue regarding non-joinder of necessary parties is raised. If petitioner has a case that WP(C)No.16981/2010 2 he is the absolute owner of plaint A schedule property, he may not be obliged to implead parties who according to the respondent are also entitled to the plaint A schedule property. It is for petitioner to decide whether he should implead the parties referred to in the written statement or not.
3. It is then contended by learned counsel that issue regarding non- joinder of necessary parties may be decided as a preliminary issue. But having regard to the provision in Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure I am not satisfied that issue regarding non-joinder of necessary parties is required to be decided as a preliminary issue.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances I do not find reason to interfere with order under challenge. Hence this Writ Petition is dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.
cks