O.S. No. 370/2023

Case between Indira Devi et al vs Bindhu Prabhakaran et al regarding impleading petition for additional defendants

Court

COURT OF THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER

Judge

Smt. REEJA R. NAIR.

Order Date

2025-11-06

Duration

Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The petitioners, Indira Devi and others, are seeking to be added as defendants in a case filed by Bindhu Prabhakaran and others regarding the use of a public pathway. They argue that the plaintiffs are incorrectly claiming ownership of the pathway, which the petitioners have used for over 40 years.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won

Interim Order

The court allowed the petition to add the petitioners as additional defendants, stating their presence is necessary for a complete adjudication of the issues involved in the case.

Judgment Favored

Plaintiff

Relief Granted

Case Type

Civil Suit

Final Judgment

The court allowed the petition to add the petitioners as additional defendants, stating their presence is necessary for a complete adjudication of the issues involved in the case.

Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioners are necessary parties whose rights will be adversely affected without their inclusion.

Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The petitioners are necessary parties whose rights will be adversely affected without their inclusion.

Supporting Evidence

Thus on perusal of the materials on record, this Court is satisfied that the parties who are sought to be impleaded are necessary parties to the suit.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the petition is allowed.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Indira Devi
Party Age: 76
Relation: W/o chellappan Pillai

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Sobha C
Party Age: 48
Relation: W/o Madhu P.G

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Syam C. Pillai
Party Age: 41
Relation: S/o late N. Chellappan Pillai

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Kaladevi T.N
Party Age: 61
Relation: W/o Jayagopalan A.C

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Anitha T.N
Party Age: 58
Relation: W/o Ratheesh P.G

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Bindhu Prabhakaran
Party Age: 53
Relation: W/o late Rajeev

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: K.P. Shanly
Party Age: 57
Relation: S/o Prabhakaran

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Kochi Corporation
Relation: rep. by its Secretary

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Secretary, Kochi Corporation

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Dipin Dileep
Party Age: 33

Plaintiffs Documents

Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: Sanal K.M
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: Geetha P. Menon
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: Anup T. Paul
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: B.K. Chandran
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: P.B. Jefin
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: Sunil Nair Palakkatt
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: Sreejith A
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: Teena M. Ashik
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: Abhilash K.N
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: T.B. Thankappan
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: T.T. Harikumar
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: M. Stalin James
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: A. Gopalakrishnan
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other

Outcome: Granted

Description:

The petitioners are to be impleaded in the array of the parties as additional defendants 4 to 11.

Evidence:

In the result, the petition is allowed. Having considered the facts and circumstances, there is no order as to costs.

Documents & Evidence

Case Classification