Mr.Vinod vs Baby
2021 Latest Caselaw 4176 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

   THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 15TH MAGHA,1942

                        OP(C).No.1829 OF 2020

AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A. NO.2332/2019 IN OS 587/2018 OF MUNSIFF
                       COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA

                                -----

PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

             MR.VINOD
             AGED 50 YEARS
             S/O.PEETHAMBARAN, MAMBURATHU HOUSE, MULAKKULAM
             VADAKKE KARA, PIRAVOM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK.

             BY ADV. SHRI.P.M.JOSHI

RESPONDENTS/ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT & DEFENDANTS 1 TO 3:

      1      BABY
             AGED 70 YEARS
             S/O.PAILY, PAINGAMATTATHIL (THATTUMBURATHU),
             PIRAVOM KARA, PIRAVOM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK,
             PIN-686664.

      2      KERALA STATE,
             REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL
             STATION, KAKKANAD, PIN-682030.

      3      THE TAHSILDAR,
             MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-
             686661.

      4      THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
             PIRAVOM VILLAGE OFFICE, PIRAVOM, PIN-686664.

             R1 BY ADV. SHRI.SACHIN RAMESH

     THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.02.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                    SATHISH NINAN, J.
          ==================
               O. P. (C) No.1829 of 2020
          ==================
         Dated this the 4th day of February, 2021

                         JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit for

prohibitory injunction. He is aggrieved by the order allowing impleadment of a third party as an

additional defendant in the suit.

2. The defendants in the suit are the State and

its officers. The dispute involved in the suit

relates to removing of soil/clay from the property

belonging to the petitioner-plaintiff. The person

who seeks to get himself impleaded as additional

defendant, is the owner of the adjoining property.

He claims that, consequent on the acts of the

plaintiff the flow of water from the properties

will be affected.

3. On the facts, the trial court considered him

to be a proper party to the suit and accordingly

allowed the impleading. On the facts as noticed the

order appears to be just and proper. The order

suffers from no error of jurisdiction warranting O. P. (C) No.1829 of 2020

interference in a proceeding under Article 227 of

the Constitution.

Original petition fails and is accordingly

dismissed.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

kns/-

//True Copy// P.S. to Judge OP(C).No.1829 OF 2020

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PLAINT DATED 04.12.2018 IN O.S.NO.587/2018 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT AT MUVATTUPUZHA.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IMPLEADING PETITION AS I.A.NO.2332/2019 IN O.S.NO.587/2018 OF MUNSIFF COURT AT MUVATTUPUZHA.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 25.11.2019.

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT WITH ROUGH SKETCH DATED 15.12.2018.

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.2332/2019 IN O.S.NO.587/2018 DATED 26.08.2020.

-------------