Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2697 (MAD)

Victor Farms Pvt. Ltd v. T. Komathi & Others

2006-10-11

S.RAJESWARAN

body2006
Judgment :- (Revision Petition filed against the order dated 17.8.2005, passed in I.A.No.792/2005 in O.S.No.98/2005, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu.) This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 17.8.2005, passed in I.A.No.792/2005 in O.S.No.98/2005, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu. 2. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. 3. The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed O.S.No.98/2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu praying for a decree for permanent injunction restraining respondents 4 and 5 and one Mohana from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 4. Respondents 1 to 3 herein as third parties filed an application in I.A.No.792/2005 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead them as defendants 4 to 6 in O.S.No.98/2005. The trial court by order dated 17.8.2005 allowed I.A.No.792/2005 and aggrieved by the same the above Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Heard both the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and respondents 1 to 5. I have also perused the documents and the judgments referred to by them in support of their submissions. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impleading parties are nothing to do with the suit schedule property and therefore the plaintiff should not be compelled to contest the suit against them when the plaintiff does not claim any relief against them. The learned counsel further adds that the 3rd parties are residing elsewhere and they are not in possession of the suit schedule property. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5 submitted that respondents 1 to 3 are in possession of the property which fact was primarily established before the trial court by Exs.P1 to P26 and only after evaluating the 26 documents,the trial court impleaded them and therefore there is no illegality nor infirmity in the order of the trial court. 8. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and gone through the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 9. Respondents 1 to 3 herein who filed I.A.No.792/2005 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. are the sisters of the 5th respondent/2nd defendant in the suit and the daughters of the 4th respondent/1st defendant in the suit. 8. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and gone through the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 9. Respondents 1 to 3 herein who filed I.A.No.792/2005 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. are the sisters of the 5th respondent/2nd defendant in the suit and the daughters of the 4th respondent/1st defendant in the suit. Respondents 1 to 3 herein have categorically asserted in the affidavit that they are in possession of the suit schedule property and on 28.4.2005, 4 persons came to their residence and threatened them to leave and vacate the place or else they would be killed. Thereafter they gave a police complaint to Kelambakkam police station and only then they came to know that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff against their mother and brother and one Mohana and therefore they have filed a petition to implead themselves in the suit. 10. The trial court after going through Exs.P1 to P26 especially the sketch, E.B.connection letter, house tax receipts, E.B.connection card, electricity bills, FIR filed against the plaintiff and others and photographs showing the damage caused to their property prima facie satisfied that respondents 1 to 3 herein are in possession of the property and therefore they were impleaded. The trial court has also considered the fact that the 3rd parties are none other than the daughter of the 1st respondent and sisters of the 2nd defendant. 11. In such circumstances, I do not find any illegality nor infirmity in the order of the trial court warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, the main issues that arise for consideration is whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property or not. By impleading respondents 1 to 3 herein, the trial court can effectively adjudicate the issue of possession and therefore even if respondents 1 to 3 are not necessary parties they are proper parties to be impleaded in the suit. 12. But the learned counsel for the revision petitioner placed strong reliance on the following judgments to contend that respondents 1 to 3 ought not to have been impleaded by the trial court. 13. In AIR 2002 S.C. 1061 (J.J.Lal Pvt. Ltd. v. M.R.Murali), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "28. 12. But the learned counsel for the revision petitioner placed strong reliance on the following judgments to contend that respondents 1 to 3 ought not to have been impleaded by the trial court. 13. In AIR 2002 S.C. 1061 (J.J.Lal Pvt. Ltd. v. M.R.Murali), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "28. Both the sets of applications raise such controversies as are beyond the scope of these proceedings. This is a simple landlord-tenant suit. The relationship of Municipal Corporation with the respondents and their mutual rights and obligations are not germane to the present proceedings. Similarly, the question of title between Hemalata Mohan and the respondents cannot be decided in these proceedings. The impleadment of any of the appellants would change the complexion of litigation and raise such controversies as are beyond the scope of this litigation. The presence of either of the applicants is neither necessary for the decision of the question involved in these proceedings nor their presence is necessary to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in these proceedings. They are neither necessary nor proper parties. Any decision in these proceedings would govern and bind the parties herein. Each of the two applicants is free to establish its own claims and title whatever it may be in any independent proceedings before a competent forum. The applications for impleadment are dismissed." 14. In the above decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the facts of that case the applicants before the Supreme Court are neither necessary nor proper parties. The facts in the above decision are different and easily distinguishable. 15. In AIR 1989 Delhi 274 (praveen Kumar v. M.Ghosh), the Delhi High Court held as follows: "5. ........ It was held in this judgment that under the provisions of O.1, Rule 10, a person may be added as a party when he ought to have been joined and if not joined i.e. Whether he is a necessary party or when without his presence the question in the suit cannot be completely decided. It was held there is no jurisdiction to add a party in any other case merely because that would save a third person the expense and botheration of a separate suit for seeking adjudication of a collateral matter which was not directly and substantively in issue in the suit. It was held there is no jurisdiction to add a party in any other case merely because that would save a third person the expense and botheration of a separate suit for seeking adjudication of a collateral matter which was not directly and substantively in issue in the suit. It was further observed that plaintiff is the dominus litis and he is a master of the suit and he cannot be compelled to fight against a person whom he does not wish to fight and against whom he does not claim any relief. It was held that only in exceptional cases where the Court finds that the addition of a new defendant is absolutely necessary to enable it to adjudicate effectively and completely the matter in controversy between the parties, will it add a person as a defendant without the consent of the plaintiff. In Fateh Raj v. Suraj Roop, AIR 1969 Rajasthan 252 it was held that only a person who has some interest in the subject-matter in suit who can be joined as a party and a person cannot be impleaded as a party to see that the suit is properly defended by the already impleaded defendants." "6. The counsel for the applicant has cited Singheshwar Rai v. Babulal Rai, AIR 1980 Patna 187, Mahendra Singh v. Devi Gir, 1979 All LJ 954 and M/s.Aero System v. Jagannath Sharma, (1978) 14 Delhi LT 234. I have gone through these judgments and find that they are based on totally different facts. In the present case it is evident that for deciding the issues arising in the suit the presence of the applicant is not required. No finding given in the suit to which the applicant is not the party is going to affect the interests of the applicant. Hence I hold that applicant is neither a necessary nor a proper party in the suit and thus I dismiss the application without any order regarding costs." 16. In the above decision, the Delhi High Court in the facts and circumstances of the case before it held that for deciding the issue arising in the suit the presence of the applicant is not required. In the above decision, the Delhi High Court in the facts and circumstances of the case before it held that for deciding the issue arising in the suit the presence of the applicant is not required. But in the very same decision it is clearly held held that only a person who has some interest in the subject-matter of the suit can be joined as a party and a person cannot be impleaded as a party to see that the suit is properly defended by the already impleaded defendants. In the present case respondents 1 to 3 herein by filing 26 documents before the trial court have established that they have some interest in the subject-matter of the suit and therefore they were rightly impleaded by the trial court. 17. In AIR 1970 S.C. 5 (Amrit v. Sudesh), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is not necessary, in order that a decree against the manager may operate as res judicata against coparceners who are not parties to the suit that the plaint or written statement should state in express terms that he is suing as manager or is being sued as a manager. It is sufficient if the manager was in fact suing or being sued as representing the whole family. 18. As seen above the facts in the above decision are totally different and this decision is not helpful to the revision petitioner. 19. In the result, there is no merit in the C.R.P. and hence the same is dismissed. No costs. C.M.P.No.18858/2005 is also dismissed.