Petitioner challenged under Article 227 the dismissal of his impleadment application in a Section 92 CPC suit regarding temple management. High Court noted the trial was in progress with evidence recorded for both sides.
Petition filed under Article 227 was dismissed; impleadment application remains rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/13TH SRAVANA, 1938
OP(C).No. 1682 of 2016 (O)
--------------------------I.A. NO.423/2016 IN OS. NO.1548/2008 OF ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PETITIONER(S):
GOPINATHAN NAIR, S/O MADHAVAN PILLAI, AGED 80 YEARS, RESIDING AT SUSHA BHAVAN, PALACE ROAD, PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.N.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, SRI.A.CHANDRA BABU, SRI.G.VARUN, SRI.ARUN GOPALAKRISHNAN.
RESPONDENT(S):
1. CHIRAKKARA MAHAVISHNU TEMPLE, KAIMANAM, PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.
2. JAYAKUMAR, S/O RAJENDRAN NAIR, AGED 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHITTOOR VEEDU, KAIMANAM, PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 121.
3. SUBRAMANIYAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RECEIVER, SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
OP(C).No. 1682 of 2016 (O)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TRUST DOCUMENT DATED 06-2006. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO.1548/2008 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED NIL. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S NO.1548/2008 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 17-06-2009. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE IMPLEADING PETITION DATED 11-01-2016 IN I.A NO.423/2016 IN O.S NO.1548/2008 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A NO. 423/2016 IN O.S NO. 1548/2008 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 18-01-2016.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
rs.
K. Ramakrishnan, J.
============================== O.P.(Civil)No.1682 of 2016
============================== Dated this, the 04th day of August 2016.
J U D G M E N T
1.This is a petition filed by the petitioner, challenging Ext.P5 order passed by the court below, declining to allow his impleadment in the suit, under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
2.The suit was filed by the plaintiff for certain reliefs against the functioning of a public temple under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also in a representative capacity. The suit was filed in the year 2008. The petitioner filed the application to get himself impleaded as Ext.P4 application as I.A.No.423/2016 in O.S.No.1548/2008 pending before Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram on the allegation that, he is an interested party in the proceedings and that application was dismissed by Ext.P5 order, which is under challenge.
3.This Court has called for a report regarding the present stage of the suit as the suit is of the year 2008.
O.P.(C)No.1682 of 2016 : 2 :
Accordingly, the Additional Munsiff (RCC),
Thiruvananthapuram has sent a report dated 23.07.2016,
which reads as follows:
“Referring to the above, I may most humbly submit that the OS 1548/2008 of this Court stands posted for further evidence of defendants to 25.07.2016. The case was included in the list of January, 2016 and trial started from 06.01.2016. PW1 is examined and documents A1 to A13 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. On the side of defendant, B1 to B10 were marked and DW1 to DW6 were examined. Now, the case stands posted to 25.07.2016 for further evidence. Meanwhile the case was reopened for defendants evidence two times as per order dated 11.04.2016 and 28.06.2016 on IAs 3898/16 and 6127/16 respectively.”
4.Heard the counsel for the petitioner Shri.A.Chandra Babu.
5.The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are some allegations against him in the plaint and in fact, he had initiated proceedings before the Revenue Divisional Officer when some dispute arose regarding the management of the temple. So, he is a really interested person to proceedings. Being a suit filed under order I Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure, the court below was not
O.P.(C)No.1682 of 2016 : 3 :
justified in dismissing the application.
6.It may be mentioned here that the suit was filed in the year 2008 after effecting publication as required under order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the petitioner was so interested as claimed by him, he could have joined as a defendant in the suit by filing an impleading application at the earliest point of time. That was not done in this case. Further, the report of the Munsiff shows that PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A13 were marked on the side of the plaintiff and DWs 1 to 6 were examined and Exts.B1 to B10 were marked on the side of the defendants and the case was posted to 25.07.2016 for further evidence. Later, the evidence of the defendant was re-opened twice as per order dated 11.04.2016 and 28.06.2016 as per orders in I.A.Nos.3898/2016 and 6127/2016. If the petitioner is so interested, and the defendants feel that the evidence in the petition may be helpful for disposal of the case, it is for them to consider as to whether he will have to be cited a witness or not, especially, when the case is now
O.P.(C)No.1682 of 2016 : 4 :
posted for further evidence of the defendants after reopening the same twice. Since the evidence has already been started and plaintiff's evidence is over and part of defendants' evidence is also completed, the court below was perfectly justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for getting himself impleaded in the suit as that will only delay the disposal of the case. So, there is no illegality and impropriety committed by the court below in passing the impugned order warranting interference of this Court invoking Article 227 of Constitution of India. So, the petition lacks merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- K.Ramakrishnan, Judge.
Bb
[True copy]
P.A to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with the Munsiff Court's order dismissing the petitioner's application for impleadment in a suit filed under Section 92 CPC.
Whether a petitioner who claims interest in temple management can be impleaded when trial has already commenced and evidence is being recorded.
Whether the delay in filing the impleadment application justifies the lower court's dismissal to prevent delay in disposal.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Gopinathan Nair
Chirakkara Mahavishnu Temple
Jayakumar
Subramaniyan
K. Ramakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
