Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 68 (MAD)

Desekar v. D. Babu

2001-01-20

S.JAGADEESAN

body2001
Judgment : 1. The petitioners herein are the defendants in the suit, O.S.No.132 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif, Sholingur. The first respondents herein filed the said suit seeking for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the petitioners/defendants herein from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property on the ground that he is the tenant under the S.L.N.S.Devasthanam, Sholingur, which has been im pleaded as third defendant in the suit. 2. The petitioners herein filed their written statement in the suit disputing the claim of the first respondent/plaintiff that he is the tenant under the Devasthanam. Virtually, the petitioners herein claim that they are the tenants under the temple and the first respondent has trespassed into the property and as such he has no right to continue to be in possession of the property. 3. While the said suit was pending, the first respondent herein filed I.A.No.248 of 2000 to implead the 2 and 3rd respondents herein, namely, the Devasthanam and the Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Sholingur as defendants 3 and 4 in the said suit. The lower court has allowed the petition by its order dated 4.9.2000. The petitioner filed the present revision challenging the said order of the lower court in IA No.248 of 2000. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the suit has been laid by the first respondent for a bare injunction restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with his possession and that be so, the respondents 3 and 4 unnecessary parties to the suit. 4. In fact no relief is claimed by the first respondent against the respondents 2 and 4 herein. Hence, by impleading them, the scope of the suit is likely to be widened and therefore, the order of the court below is liable to be set aside. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent that the Devasthanam has been impleaded as party-defendant in order to establish that the first respondent is the tenant under the said Devasthanam. There is no prejudice for the petitioners herein because of the impleading of the owner of the property. In so far as the junior Engineer, Electricity Board, the 3rd respondent herein is concerned, the first respondent is seeking restoration of the Electricity and hence he is necessary party to the suit. 6. There is no prejudice for the petitioners herein because of the impleading of the owner of the property. In so far as the junior Engineer, Electricity Board, the 3rd respondent herein is concerned, the first respondent is seeking restoration of the Electricity and hence he is necessary party to the suit. 6. I have carefully considered the above contentions of the both the counsel. There is no dispute that the suit has been laid by the first respondent only for bare injunction restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with his possession. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the ownership of the property, as both the first respondent and the petitioners are claiming to be the tenants under the said Devasthanam. When there is no dispute with regard to the ownership of the property, this court is of the view that the Devasthanam is an unnecessary party to the proceedings. To establish the case of the first respondent that he is a tenant under the Devasthanam, the said Devasthanam need not be impleaded as a party to the proceeding. 7. So far as the Junior Engineer, Electricity Board, who has been implead as fourth defendant is concerned, even though the counsel for the first respondent states that the first respondent is seeking the relief of restoration of electricity there is no such relief prayed for in the original plaint. When there is no such relief as prayed for in the plaint against the third respondent herein the third respondent is also an unnecessary party to the proceedings. Hence the Trial Court has totally erred in allowing the impleading petition without any sufficient cause or without looking into the necessity of their presence. Hence the order in I.A.No.248 of 2000 dated 4.9.2000 is set aside. This C.R.P. is allowed. Consequently, the C.M.P. is also dismissed.