Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M.K.JANARDHANAN,ADIYODI,S/O versus INDIRA DEVI,W/O.KAMALESH CHAND

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M.K.JANARDHANAN,ADIYODI,S/O v. INDIRA DEVI,W/O.KAMALESH CHAND - WP(C) No. 18373 of 2007(K) [2007] RD-KL 10360 (15 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 18373 of 2007(K)

1. M.K.JANARDHANAN,ADIYODI,S/O
... Petitioner

Vs

1. INDIRA DEVI,W/O.KAMALESH CHAND,
... Respondent

2. R.J.SJITH,S/O.JANARDHANAN ADIYODI,

3. B.ERINA,W/O.SAJITH,BHAVANA,OLAVANNA AMS

For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

Dated :15/06/2007

O R D E R

M.N. KRISHNAN, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No.18373 OF 2007 K = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dated this the 15th June, 2007



J U D G M E N T

This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the learned additional Munsiff, Kozhikode-II, in I.A. No. 308/2006 in O.S. No. 402/04. One Smt. Indira Devi filed an application for getting herself impleaded in the suit as a necessary party. The suit, O.S. No. 402/04 is to cancel the document and the grievance of the petitioner is that the said property is given to her as security for the loan taken and she apprehends that it is a collusive suit between the plaintiff and the defendant in the suit and therefore if it concludes in a decree in favour of the plaintiff then she will be the substantial loser and therefore her junction as a party in the suit is necessary to safeguard her interest and for a proper disposal of the case. The court found it to be correct and therefore impleaded her. It is against that decision the present writ petition is filed. The apprehension of the petitioner in the I.A. is to the effect that she will be without any remedy if the property which is given as security WPC No. 18373/2007 -2- and the said document is set aside by a decree of the court. It is her apprehension that it is a suit filed by the parties to defeat her interest. So, one cannot say that she is a person who does not have any interest in the suit at all or in the result of the suit at all. Therefore, at this stage it was only just and proper for the court to implead her as a party. The nature of contentions, etc. which she can raise is a matter that the court can consider after hearing the parties. Therefore the writ petition is dismissed with these observations. M.N. KRISHNAN

JUDGE

jan/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.