Skip to content


P. Sivasubramanian Vs. N.N.P. Suriya Narayana Raja and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos. 1963 & 1964 of 2016 & C.M.P(MD)No. 9256 of 2016
Judge
AppellantP. Sivasubramanian
RespondentN.N.P. Suriya Narayana Raja and Others
Excerpt:
.....has allowed the applications by impugned order, dated 8.6.2016. against that orders, the present civil revision petitions have been filed. 4. heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials on record. 5. it is an admitted fact that the respondents 1 to 3 have filed the aforesaid suit before the principal district munsif court, srivilliputhur for declaration and for recovery of possession. in the aforesaid suit, the respondents 1 to 3 filed impleading applications to implead the sitha samaaja karthikai vizha committee as proposed defendant in the suit. the grievance of the petitioners is that the said applications filed by the respondents 1 to 3 is barred by limitation. 6. as evident from the affidavit filed by the respondents 1 to 3 pending suit, third defendant.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 8.6.2016 passed in I.A.Nos.247 and 248 of 2016 in O.S.No.395 of 2009, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Srivilliputhur.)

Common Order

1. These Revisions have been filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 8.6.2016 passed in I.A.Nos.247 and 248 of 2016 in O.S.No.395 of 2009, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Srivilliputhur.

2. According to the Petitioner, the respondents 1 to 3 herein filed the original suit in O.S.No.395 of 2009, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur against the Petitioner's deceased father Palraj, for recovery of possession. In the aforesaid suit, the Petitioners deceased father has filed a written statement on 12.11.2009 stating that the entire suit allegation levelled against the Sitha Samaaja Karthikai Vizha Committee, Rajapalayam and they are the necessary party to decide the issue. The Petitioner's father has also raised a specific defence in the written statement that the said Sitha Samaaja Karthikai Vizha Committee is necessary party to the suit. Even after that, the respondents 1 to 3 did not take any steps to implead the said committee as defendants in the suit. Subsequent to the death of Petitioner's father, respondents 1 to 3/the Petitioners become the legal representatives of the Petitioner's deceased father Palraj. Subsequent to that, the third respondent also died. Taking advantage of the death of the third respondent, impleading petition is filed by the respondents 1 to 3 to implead the 4th and 5th defendants as defendants in the suit.

3. The Petitioners herein filed a counter affidavit and raised objection that the said applications filed by the respondents 1 to 3 is barred by limitation. Therefore the said committee cannot be impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased third respondent since issue has already been framed. But however, erroneously the trial Court has allowed the applications by impugned order, dated 8.6.2016. Against that orders, the present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and perused the materials on record.

5. It is an admitted fact that the respondents 1 to 3 have filed the aforesaid suit before the Principal District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur for declaration and for recovery of possession. In the aforesaid suit, the respondents 1 to 3 filed impleading applications to implead the Sitha Samaaja Karthikai Vizha Committee as proposed defendant in the suit. The grievance of the Petitioners is that the said applications filed by the respondents 1 to 3 is barred by limitation.

6. As evident from the affidavit filed by the respondents 1 to 3 pending suit, third defendant also died. Further, the above said Vizha Committee has managed and conducted the festival. Therefore to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, they are necessary parties in the suit. The dismissal of this Civil Revision Petition, would not preclude the Petitioners from raising their contentions before the trial Court at the time of hearing. Therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the trial Court. Thus the Civil Revision Petitions fails.

7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs.


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