Bala Bhaskaran Kaithamakalathil vs Beema Beegum
2021 Latest Caselaw 23353 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
     THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943
                          OP(C) NO. 653 OF 2017
      IN OS 84/2009 OF MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT,PONNANI, MALAPPURAM
PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS NO 1 TO 5 IN OS:

     1     BALA BHASKARAN KAITHAMA KALATHIL
           AGED 74 YEARS
           S/O. GOVINDA MENON,RESIDING AT PONNANI NAGARAM AMSOM,
           PUNAATHIRUTHY DESOM,PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

     2     SARASWATHY KOZHIKOTTA VEETTIL
           AGED 64 YEARS
           W/O. SOMASEKHARA MENON, RESIDING ATPONNANI NAGARAM AMSOM,
           PUNAATHIRUTHY DESOM,PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

     3     SANDHYA
           AGED 44 YEARS
           D/O. SARASWATHY, RESIDING ATPONNANI NAGARAM AMSOM,
           PUNAATHIRUTHY DESOM,PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

     4     SANTHOSH
           AGED 41 YEARS
           S/O. SARASWATHY, RESIDING ATPONNANI NAGARAM AMSOM,
           PUNAATHIRUTHY DESOM,PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
           REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND MOTHER
           SARASWATHY KOZHIKOTTA VEETTIL.

     5     SAGEETHA
           AGED 39 YEARS
           D/O. SARASWATHY, RESIDING ATPONNANI NAGARAM AMSOM,
           PUNAATHIRUTHY DESOM,PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
           REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ANDMOTHER SARASWATHY
           KOZHIKOTTA VEETTIL.

           BY ADVS.
           DR.K.P.PRADEEP
           SRI.T.T.BIJU
           SRI.SANAND RAMAKRISHNAN
           SMT.T.THASMI


RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT NO 6 IN THE OS:

     1     BEEMA BEEGUM
           W/O. AMANULLA, RESIDING AT PONNANI NAGARAM
           AMSOM,PUNAATHIRUTHY DESOM,
 OP(C) NO. 653 OF 2017
                                      2

              PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN - 679576

      2       SHEJI
              D/O. AMANULLA, RESIDING AT PONNANI NAGARAM
              AMSOM,PUNAATHIRUTHY DESOM, PONNANI TALUK,MALAPPURAM
              DISTRICT PIN - 679576

      3       SHIHABUDHEEN
              S/O. MOHAMMED KUTTY, SOUMYA MANZIL,PONNANI NAGARAM
              AMSOM,PALLIPTAM DESOM, PONNANI TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
              PIN - 679576

              BY ADVS.
              T.I.ABDUL SALAM
              SMT.NIMMY JOHNSON
              SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE
              SMT.K.R.MONISHA



      THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.11.2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP(C) NO. 653 OF 2017
                                          3




                                 JUDGMENT

Dated this the 25th day of November, 2021

The grievance raised in this original petition is

regarding the failure of the trial court to strictly

follow the procedure prescribed under Order 1 Rule

10 (4) of Code of Civil Procedure, while impleading

a third party.

2. The essential facts are as under;

The petitioners are the original defendants in

the suit filed by respondents 1 and 2 for fixation of

boundary. In the suit, the third respondent filed

impleading application, claiming that he had

purchased a portion of the property belonging to

respondents 1 and 2. The trial court allowed the

application and the third respondent was

impleaded as the sixth defendant.

3. Heard the learned Counsel for the

petitioners and for respondents 1 and 2.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relied

on Order 1 Rule 10(4) to contend that, when a third OP(C) NO. 653 OF 2017

party is added as additional defendant, the plaintiff

has to carry out amendment to the cause title.

Attention is drawn to Order VI Rule 18 dealing with

the consequences of failure to amend after

obtaining leave to amend. It is contended that a

conjoint reading of Order 1 Rule 10(4) and Order VI

Rule 18 of C.P.C would indicate that the plaintiff is

bound to amend the cause title when an additional

defendant is added.

5. Learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2

contended that Order 1 Rule 10(4) applies only

when the defendant is added by the court and not

when such addition is at the instance of the

plaintiff. As far as the instant case is concerned,

the application for impleadment was filed by a

third party and the court having allowed the

application and arrayed the third party as the sixth

defendant, the plaintiff is not bound to amend the

cause title to the plaint, as provided under Order VI

Rule 18, is the contention.

OP(C) NO. 653 OF 2017

6. Having heard the learned Counsel, I find

more merit in the contentions urged on behalf of

respondents 1 and 2 and the contentions put forth

by the petitioners to be hyper technical. Hence, I

find no reason to exercise the supervisory

jurisdiction under Article 227.

In the result, the original petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE NB/25-11 OP(C) NO. 653 OF 2017

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 653/2017

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 4-4-2009 IN OS NO.84 OF 2009 FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED MUNSIFF COURT, PONNANI.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 8-6-

2009 OF THE D1 TO 5 IN OS NO.84 OF 2009 FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED MUNSIFF COURT, PONNANI.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3-11-2016 IN OS NO 84 OF 2009 ISSUED BY THE LEARNED MUNSIFF COURT PONNANI.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A TO JUDGE