Devassikutty @ Sebastian vs Selvaraj(Died)
2022 Latest Caselaw 2980 Ker

RFA No.485/2010                              1/1

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                      PRESENT
                       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
            Wednesday, the 16th day of March 2022 / 25th Phalguna, 1943
                        IA.NO.1/2021 IN RFA NO. 485 OF 2010
              OS 590/2008 OF ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD
   PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED:

          ABDULKHADER P.K., AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.HAMSAKUTTY HAJI, RESIDES IN
          POLLAKKUNNAN HOUSE, NO.8/965, NELLIPUZHAKKAL, ARAKKURISSI,
          MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678582.

   RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS:

      1. DEVASSIKUTTY @ SEBASTIAN, AGED 76 YEARS, S/O.KUNCHACKO, PALLIPPADAM
         HOUSE, KANJOORKARAYIL, KIZHAKKUMBHAGAM VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK,
         ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683575.
      2. JOTHIMANI, LEGAL HEIR OF LATE G.P. SELVARAJ, W/O. LATE G.P.
         SELVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, DOOR NO.27, THADAKAM ROAD, GCT POST,
         COIMBATORE, PIN-641 013.

        Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
   affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to implead petitioner
   herein as additional respondent No.3 in the above Appeal, in the interest
   of justice.
        This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
   and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and upon hearing the arguments
   of SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH, Advocate for the petitioner in IA, M/S.T.KRISHNANUNNI
   (SR.), K.MOHANAKANNAN, VINOD RAVINDRANATH, MEENA A. & M.R.MINI, Advocates
   for R1 in IA/Appellant in RFA and of M/S. K.SUNITHA VINOD & A.N.RAJAN
   BABU, Advocates for R2 in IA/R2 in RFA, the court passed the following:
                                      ORDER

It is an application filed by a 3rd person seeking to implead him as additional 3rd respondent in the appeal. It is not under Order 22 CPC or Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Even going by the allegation brought under the purview of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, he is not a party to the impugned judgment. As such, there may not be any binding force on the petitioner. Hence, the application deserves only dismissal. I do so.

                                                   Sd/- P.SOMARAJAN, JUDGE




16-03-2022                     /True Copy/                               Assistant Registrar