Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 4514 (MAD)

K. Balakrishnan v. Veerasamy & Others

2008-12-04

M.VENUGOPAL

body2008
Judgment : 1. The Civil Revision Petitioner/ third party has filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 28.07.2008 in I.A.No.115 of 2008 in O.S.No.345 of 2007 passed by the Principal District Judge, Myladuthurai, in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner/third party under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The Trial Court while passing orders in I.A.No.115 of 2008 has inter alia opined that the revision petitioner/third party is not a necessary party and that he can seek relief by filing a separate suit for specific performance, resultantly has dismissed the application. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/third party urges before this Court that the order passed by the Trial Court in I.A.No.115 of 2008 is materially irregular and the same is not sustainable in law and that the Trial Court has not taken note of the fact that the revision petitioner/third party has entered into a registered agreement of sale with the second respondent herein on 17.03.2007 and therefore, the petitioner is an individual who is interested in the suit is not only a necessary but also a proper property to the case and this aspect of the matter has not been taken note by the Trial Court in proper perspective and the main aim of the respondents is to frustrate the sale agreement in favour of the revision petitioner and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition. 4. Contending contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff submits that the revision petitioner/third party is not a necessary and proper party to the case filed by the first respondent/plaintiff and if at all the revision petitioner has any remedy, he can seek the same by filing a separate suit for specific performance in the manner known to law and in a suit filed by the first respondent/plaintiff, it is not open to the civil revision petitioner/third party to get himself impleaded for the purpose of deciding the case and further that the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application is perfectly valid and maintainable in the eye of law and therefore, this Court sitting in revision at this stage need not interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. 5. It is to be noted that the object of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is to prevent plurality of suits. 5. It is to be noted that the object of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is to prevent plurality of suits. One must bear in mind that when a Court of law deals with an application for impleadment of a party under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, the Court has to take note of the fact whether the proposed party is a necessary or a proper party for the purpose of effective adjudication of the controversies in the suit. As far as the present case is concerned, revision petitioner/third party claims right by means of a registered agreement of sale with the second respondent and if that be the case then the proper and prudent course to him is to file a suit for specific performance before the competent court of law in the manner known to law and in that view of the matter, this Court comes to the inevitable conclusion that the civil revision petitioner/ third party is not a necessary or a proper party and infact he is only an alien to the proceedings in O.S.No.345 of 2007 filed by the first respondent/plaintiff before the Principal District Munsif, Myladuthurai and in that view of the matter, this civil revision petition is dismissed in the interest of justice. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The order passed by the Court below in I.A.No.115 of 2008 in O.S.No.345 of 2007 is affirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this revision. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.