The Kerala High Court ruled that a mere possibility of an individual occupying the premises via license is not a sufficient pre-condition to make one necessary or proper party in an appeal pending between the licensee and the licensor.
Observing so, Justice A Badharudeen rejected the application instituted by the petitioner to get impleaded as an additional respondent in the appeal.
Factual Background
In an appeal between the respondents herein before the District Court, the petitioner moved an IA to be impleaded as an additional respondent. However, this was rejected citing that the petitioner was not a necessary party as it did not even have a remote or indirect nexus with the lis involved in the present case. Aggrieved by the finding of the District Court, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Case of the Petitioner
The counsel’s for the petitioner stated that the pendency of the impugned appeal was the main reason for the petitioner not getting the premises yet. Thus, immediate disposal of the appeal was sought by presenting the petitioner as a party.
Case of the Respondent
Respondents filed a counter asserting that the petitioner was neither a necessary nor a proper party and the adjudication of appeal would in no way affect the interest of the petitioner.
Observation of the Court
“In order to add a person as a party to a suit, he should have direct interest in the subject matter of litigation whether it raises questions relating to movable or immovable property. That is not the case here as facts ispo facto would establish”.
On scrutiny of the materials, the Judge noted that the respondents have been occupying the premises on the basis of license. While confirming the order of the District Court, it was also directed to speed up the hearing and disposal of the appeal at the earliest, at any rate.
Case Details
Before: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Big Movers v. Reeni George and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice A. Badharudeen
Picture Source :
