M/S D.D Vyapar Bhavan Owners ... vs M/S Indus Towers Ltd
2023 Latest Caselaw 10802 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 27TH ASWINA, 1945
                        OP(C) NO. 1782 OF 2023
 AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA NO.12/2022 IN OS 1140/2015 OF PRINCIPAL
                       MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER:

          M/S D.D VYAPAR BHAVAN OWNERS ASSOCIATION ,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT ABY JOSEPH,
          SON OF JOSEPH, AGED 57 YEARS, HAVING OFFICE
          AT 27-28, BASEMENT FLOOR, D.D VYAPAR BHAVAN,
          K.P VALLON ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN-682020.
          RESIDING AT 306, FERN ICON , PANCHAVATI,
          AMBELIPADAM ROAD, VYTILA KOCHI,, PIN - 682019

          BY ADVS.
          P.MARTIN JOSE
          HARIKRISHNAN S.
          NAVEEN A.VARKEY


RESPONDENTS:

    1     M/S INDUS TOWERS LTD, MANAGER OF PASSIVE
          INFRASTRUCTURE OF M/S BPL MOBILE CELLULAR LTD,
          (PRESENTLY KNOWN AS M/S VODAFONE CELLULAR LTD,
          REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS DULY AUTHORIZED DGM (LEGAL)
          PREMA KRISHNAN NAIR, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT INDUS
          TOWERS LTD, VENGARATH TOWERS, COCHIN, KERALA.,
          PIN - 682025

    2     M/S DESAI HOMES, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
          SRI. V.R DESAI (DIED) 40/7669,C-40 1ST FLOOR, D.D
          VASTRA MAHAL MARKET ROAD ERNAKULAM ., PIN - 682011

          BY ADV RAVI SANKAR P K


     THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.10.2023,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OPC 1782/23
                                       2

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner impugns Ext.P5 order of the Principal Munsiff,

Ernakulam, whereby, their request for impleading the partners of

the 2nd respondent - Firm, has been rejected. They explain that

they were forced to move an application for impleading the partners

of the Firm, because its Managing Partner died.

2. I am afraid that I cannot understand the purport of the

afore argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner because, if

the Managing Partner of the 2nd respondent has now died, then

obviously, all which was required to do was to seek substitution of

such person by the incumbent. This has not been interdicted in

Ext.P5.

3. I notice from the impugned order, that the learned

Munsiff has only rejected the application for impleadment; but did

not consider any application for substitution of the Managing

Partner of the Firm, because it was never filed.

4. In the afore circumstances, I cannot find Ext.P5 to be in

error and therefore, confirm it; however, leaving full liberty to the OPC 1782/23

petitioner to seek appropriate remedies, for which purpose, all

contentions are left open.

This Original Petition is thus closed.

Sd/-

RR                                        DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                                JUDGE
 OPC 1782/23


                 APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1782/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1          TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN O S NO. 1140 OF

2015 OF MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM FILED BY THE 1ST DEFENDANT ON 09-09-2015 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT AND THE COUNTER CLAIM FILED BY THE PETITIONER /2ND DEFENDANT IN O S NO. 1140 OF 2015 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM ON 29- 01-2016 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF RECONSTITUTED DEED DATED 07-

01-2022 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF I.A NO. 12 OF 2022 IN O S NO.1140 OF 2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM ON 13-12-2022 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 12-01-2023 IN I.A. NO. 12 OF 2022 IN O S NO.1140 OF 2015 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM