In I.A. No.1238/2018 In Os ... vs By Advs
2021 Latest Caselaw 1128 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

    TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 22TH POUSHA, 1942

                      OP(C).No.1092 OF 2020

 IN I.A. NO.1238/2018 IN OS 217/2016 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR

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


PETITIONER/PETITIONER/SUPPLEMENTAL 6TH DEFENDANT SOUGHT TO BE
IMPLEADED:

             N.R.GOPINATH
             AGED 69 YEARS
             SON OF RAMAN, NADUKKEPURAKKAL, PERINGOME AMSOM AND
             DESOM ,P.O.PERINGOM, KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN-670 353

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR)
             SRI.ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS 1 TO 5:

      1      RAGHAVAN P.P
             AGED 61 YEARS
             SON OF KUNHAMBU, MEMBER PERINGOME THIYA SAMUDAYA
             SANGHAM, PUTHIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
             PERINGOME AMSOM AND DESOM, ,PERINGOME P.O.,
             KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 353

      2      PULUKKKOL SUKUMARAN
             AGED 52 YEARS
             SON OF KUMARAN, PRESIDENT, PERINGOME THIYA SAMUDAYA
             SANGHAM, PERINGOME AMSOM AND DESOM,
             PERINGOME P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 353

      3      C.SAJEEVAN
             AGED 36 YEARS
             SON OF PANCHALANKOTTAN, CHUNNAMPI HOUSE,
             SECRETARY,PERINGOME THIYA SAMUDAYA SANGHAM, PERINGOME
             AMSOM AND DESOM, ,PERINGOME P.O.,
             KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 353

      4      MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK,
             PERINGOME BRANCH, KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN-670 353
 OP(C).No.1092 OF 2020

      5      PARAYNAKUNNATH PARU,
             AGED 64 YEARS
             WIFE OF CHENDRASEKHARAN NAIR, PERINGOME AMSOM AND
             DESOM, PERINGOME P.O.,KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 353

      6      PARAYANKUNNATH KRISHNAN,
             AGED 60 YEARS
             SON OF KANNAN,PAYYANNUR AMSOM AND DESOM,MAVICHERI,
             P.O.PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN-670 307

             R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR

     THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.01.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                 SATHISH NINAN, J.
       ==================
            O. P. (C) No.1092 of 2020
       ==================
      Dated this the 12th day of January, 2021

                             JUDGMENT

The dismissal of an application seeking

impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, is challenged by the petitioner-person seeking to get

himself impleaded.

2. The relief claimed in the suit as amended

reads thus:-

"A). For a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants No.1 & 2 and their men from transferring the plaint A schedule property (bearing document No.620/2013 of SRO Pringome) to third parties, and also restraining the defendants from withdrawing the deposit amount belonged to sangham from the Syndicate Bank, Peringome Branch.

B) Restraining the 3rd defendant from permitting the 1st and 2nd defendant withdrawing the amount in deposit (plaint B schedule) from the Syndicate Bank, Peringome Branch.

O. P. (C) No.1092 of 2020 :- 2 :-

C) To declare that the alleged document NO.2071/2016 of SRO Peringome is null and void.

D) For the cost of the suit."

3. The suit is filed on the averment that the

plaint schedule properties, with respect to which

the relief is claimed, belongs to Thiyya Samudaya

Sangham. Suit is claimed to be filed to protect the

interests of the Sangham. The petitioner claims to

be a member of the Sangham and also its former

President. He seeks to get himself impleaded on the

allegation that the defendants in the suit have won

over the original plaintiff and is attempting to

enter into settlement adverse to the interests of

the Sangham.

4. The suit having been laid to protect the

interests of the Sangham, no prejudice will be O. P. (C) No.1092 of 2020 :- 3 :-

caused if the petitioner is impleaded as an

additional party to the suit. Rather it would only

be in the interests of the Sangham.

In the result, the order impugned will stand

set aside. IA 1238/2018 in OS 217/2016 will stand

allowed. Original Petition is allowed as above.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

kns/-

//True Copy// P.S. to Judge OP(C).No.1092 OF 2020

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 217/2016 FILED BY 1ST RESPONDENT IN MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY 1 AND 2ND DEFENDANTS

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR IMPLEADING (IA 1238/208) FILED BY PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P4 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF MUNSIFF COURT , THRISSUR IN IA NO1238/2018

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED DATED 16.3.2013 EXECUTED BY PARAYANKUNNATH KUMARAN AND PARU AND REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO-620/2013 OF SRO PERINGOME.

----------