Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2775 (MAD)

V. Nataraj v. Savithri & Others

2008-07-31

S.RAJESWARAN

body2008
Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/2nd plaintiff to set aside the Order dated 25.06.2008 made in I.A.No.270 of 2008 in O.S.No.69 of 1988 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gudiyattam, Vellore District. 2. The 2nd plaintiff in O.S.No.69 of 1988 is the revision petitioner before this Court. The suit in O.S.No.69 of 1988 was filed by the petitioner herein/plaintiff for declaration and for consequential permanent injunction. Written statement and Additional written statement have been filed by the defendants 1 to 3. Pending suit an application in I.A.No.270 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff to implead the proposed parties as defendants 4 to 8 who are the husband and sons of the deceased daughter of the first defendant. The said petition was resisted by the respondents 1 to 3/defendants 1 to 3 by filing a counter. The trial Court by order dated 25.06.2008 dismissed that application. Aggrieved by the same, the above civil revision petition has been filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and I have also gone through the documents filed in support of his submissions. 4. The suit in O.S.No.69 of 1988 has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for declaration and for consequential permanent injunction. Pending suit, after 10 years, an application in I.A.No.270 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff to implead the proposed parties as defendants 4 to 8, who are the husband and sons of the deceased daughter of the first defendant stating that in order to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, they are necessary parties in the suit. It is their contention that they have attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner/plaintiff in respect of the suit property. The trial Court in appreciation of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, rejected the application holding that when the suit is posted for examination of further witnesses. this application has been filed after 10 years without any merits. The trial Court has also found that the impleading parties are not necessary parties for deciding the issue. 5. In my opinion the order passed by the Court below is correct as any order that would be passed in the suit will not be of any concern to the parties sought to be impleaded. The trial Court has also found that the impleading parties are not necessary parties for deciding the issue. 5. In my opinion the order passed by the Court below is correct as any order that would be passed in the suit will not be of any concern to the parties sought to be impleaded. Even without them an effective decree could be passed as their absence will not affect the relief to be granted to the plaintiff, if he succeeds in the suit. Therefore, the proposed parties are neither necessary nor proper parties to be impleaded in the suit that too when the suit filed in the year 1988 is posted for examination of further witness on the side of the petitioner/plaintiff. Thus, the Court below correctly passed the order and it does not warrant any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 is also dismissed. 7. Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 1988, I direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.69 of 1988 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, preferably by taking up the matter on a day to day basis.