Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 4399 (MAD)

Rasu v. Farida Beevi

2008-11-27

M.VENUGOPAL

body2008
Judgment :- This Civil Revision petition is projected by the petitioner/defendant as against the orders dated 04.07.2008 in I.A.No.359 of 2007 in O.S.No.15 of 2005 passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam, in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner/defendant under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of Civil Procedure Code praying permission of the Court to implead parties to the suit. 2. The trial Court while passing orders in I.A.No.359 of 2007 has opined that the dispute between the parties is only in respect of tenancy and since the site belongs to the Government, the Government will take necessary action against the respondent and the cause of action is different from the cause of action of the suit on hand and resultantly has dismissed the application. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant submits that the order passed by the trial Court in dismissing I.A.No.359 of 2007 to implead necessary and proper parties is materially irregular and contrary to law and the Court has not taken note of the fact that the land belongs to the Government and the same has classified as Poramboke land and in such a case it is necessary to implead the State Government as necessary party and further the trial Court has observed that since the Revision Petitioner has accepted the tenancy under the respondent, then the application to implead the Government as necessary party ought not to have been filed, which is not correct in the eye of law and therefore, prays for allowing the Civil Revision Petition in the interest of justice. 4. The respondent/plaintiff has laid the suit on the basis of tenancy and the same has been reportedly terminated by means of notice. In the present suit, the relief sought for by the respondent/plaintiff is to the effect of direction being given by the Court to the Revision Petitioner/Defendant to hand over the suit property etc.,. The revision petitioner/defendant sought to implead (1) Tamil Nadu Government represented by the District Collector; (2) Assistant Divisional Engineer of High Ways Department as necessary and proper parties. For the land in question of the suit property, the revision petitioner/defendant has been given patta by the Government. The revision petitioner/defendant sought to implead (1) Tamil Nadu Government represented by the District Collector; (2) Assistant Divisional Engineer of High Ways Department as necessary and proper parties. For the land in question of the suit property, the revision petitioner/defendant has been given patta by the Government. Hence, it is for the revision petitioner/defendant to prove his case and on going through the order of the trial Court, this Court is of the considered view that cause of action for the present suit is different and in that view of the matter, the trial Court has exercised its discretion in a proper way to dismiss the impleading application and therefore the Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. 5. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. It is open to the revision petitioner/defendant to project his case before the trial Court and to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant that the pleadings have been completed and issues have been framed and therefore the suit is ripe for trial and in the view of the matter, this Court directs the trial Court, namely, District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Nannilam to dispose of the suit within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to report compliance to this Court. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.