Skip to content


Thilrasbanu Vs. Sulthan and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R.P(PD)(MD)No. 1042 of 2016
Judge
AppellantThilrasbanu
RespondentSulthan and Others
Excerpt:
.....submit that the petitioner/proposed third defendant is not necessary to impleaded in the suit. the suit filed by the plaintiff/first respondent has to be dismissed at the threshold. therefore the petitioner herein has no legal right to implead in the proceedings. therefore he prays for dismissal of the civil revision petition. 4. heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 5. the first respondent herein has filed a suit in o.s.no.11 of 2011 for declaration and injunction against the respondents 3 and 4. written statement has also been filed by the defendants in the above said suit. the revision petitioner herein has filed i.a.no.27 of 2016 in o.s.no.11 of 2011 on 12.1.2016 with a prayer to implead himself as proposed third defendant.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the fair and decretal order made in I.A.No.27 of 2016 in O.S.No.11 of 2011, dated 17.3.2016, on the file of the District Munsif, Mudukulathur.)

1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the fair and decretal order made in I.A.No.27 of 2016 in O.S.No.11 of 2011, dated 17.3.2016, on the file of the District Munsif, Mudukulathur.

2. According to the Petitioner, the first respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.11 of 2011 before the learned District Munsif, Mudukulathur for declaration and injunction against the respondents 3 and 4 and the above said suit is pending before the said Court. While so, the Petitioner herein has filed an impleading application in I.A.No.27 of 2016 in O.S.No.11 of 2011 to implead himself as third respondent in the main suit. According to the Petitioner, that in the aforesaid suit, the Petitioner's property is also shown in the schedule of property which was purchased by him from the first respondent herein. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. After hearing the parties concerned, the trial Court had dismissed the application. Hence the Petitioner has come forward with the present Civil Revision Petition before this Court.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the Petitioner/proposed third defendant is not necessary to impleaded in the suit. The suit filed by the plaintiff/first respondent has to be dismissed at the threshold. Therefore the petitioner herein has no legal right to implead in the proceedings. Therefore he prays for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5. The first respondent herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.11 of 2011 for declaration and injunction against the respondents 3 and 4. Written statement has also been filed by the defendants in the above said suit. The revision Petitioner herein has filed I.A.No.27 of 2016 in O.S.No.11 of 2011 on 12.1.2016 with a prayer to implead himself as proposed third defendant in the above suit.

6. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner has purchased the property from the first respondent herein on 28.1.2011. The above said property has also been included in the schedule of the suit property. Therefore, the Petitioner has filed an application to implead himself as third defendant in the suit. The above said property was purchased by the Petitioner prior to the institution of the suit.

7. Now the point for consideration before this Court is that whether the revision petitioner/proposed third defendant is a necessary party in the aforesaid suit has to be decided?

8. Admittedly,, the revision petitioner has purchased the property prior to the institution of the suit. The petitioner came to the notice of the institution of the suit pending before the District Munsif Court, Mudukulathur and hence he filed an application to implead himself as third defendant in the main suit. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner has purchased the property from the first respondent/Plaintiff. If the suit is decreed, it will affect the right of the Petitioner. Therefore the Petitioner is also a necessary party to be impleaded in the suit. Hence he filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code to implead himself as third defendant in the suit. If the petitioner has been impleaded as third defendant in the suit, it will resolve the issue and avoid multiplicity of proceedings. If the aforesaid suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff/first respondent herein, the Petitioner will definitely approach the trial Court with a new suit, which would pave the way for multiplicity of proceedings. If the Petitioner/proposed party is allowed to be impleaded as third defendant in the suit, the dispute raised in the suit will be resolved in the presence of all the parties concerned and it will further avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore in the light of the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Thomson Press(India)Limited .vs. nanak Builders and Investors Limited reported in 2013(2) CTC 104(SC),wherein, the Honourable Apex Court has held that Order 1 Rule CPC empowers to implead any party at any stage of proceeding whose presence is necessary for effectually adjudicating the dispute

9. The aforesaid decision has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Devaki Thiyagarajan .vs. Ahamed and others reported in 2015(4) CTC 293 and paragraph 66 of the judgement reads as under:

''66. His Lordship has also observed that Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P:.C empowers the Court to add any person as party at any stage of the proceedings if the person whose presence before the Court is necessary or proper for effective adjudication of the issue involved in the suit. It is manifest that Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C gives a wider discretion to the court to meet every case or defect of a party and to proceed with a person who is either a necessary or proper party whose presence in the Court is essential for effective determination of the issues involved in the suit.''

I also had an occasion to consider the same issue in Kalaivani @ Devasena vs Ramu on 20 April, 2016 in CRP(PD)No.4341 of 2011.

10. In the present case, the Petitioner has already purchased the property from the first respondent and he is the absolute owner of the property insofar as his schedule of property in the suit is concerned. Hence no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the petitioner is impleaded as third defendant in the main suit. Further this order will not stand in the way of the parties to agitate their rights at the time of trial before the trial Court.

11. Therefore in the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, this Court is inclined to pass the following Order:

1. The order passed in I.A.No.27 of 2016 in O.S.No.11 of 2011, dated 17.3.2016, on the file of the District Munsif, Mudukulathur is set aside and I.A.No.27 of 2016 is allowed.

12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, without prejudice to the rights of the parties at the time of trial before the trial Court. No order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //