Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 4712 (MAD)

S. Karunambika v. K. Rajan & Others

2008-12-17

M.VENUGOPAL

body2008
Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner/petitioner/proposed party has filed this present civil revision petition as against the order dated 29. 2008 in I.A.SR.No.2272 of 2008 in O.S.No.410 of 2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court No.3), Coimbatore in rejecting the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) and Section 151 of CPC. 2. The trial Court, while rejecting the interlocutory application at the unnumbered stage, has inter alia opined that the revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff cannot seek any relief in the suit in O.S.No.410 o 2005 filed by the respondents 1 and 2 against the 3rd respondent/defendant therein and the petitioner has to work out his remedy by filing a separate suit and not by impleading himself as a party in the suit and resultantly rejected the application. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/petitioner/proposed party urges before this Court that the trial Court has not taken note of the fact that the revision petitioner herein is the prior sale agreement holder to that of the respondents 1 and 2 and that the revision petitioner herein is a necessary party for the proper and effective adjudication of the controversies in the suit in O.S.No.410 of 2005, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has right of filing of a separate suit and this aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the trial Court in a proper perspective and further that the trial Court has not even number the interlocutory application in I.A.SR.NO.2272 of 2008 and has dismissed in limini, without providing an opportunity to the revision petitioner to put forth his case and further that the revision petitioner/petitioner/proposed party is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property has not been taken into account by the trial Court and therefore prays for allowing this civil revision petition in the interest of justice. 4. 4. The gist of the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the revision petitioner/petitioner/ proposed party is the prior sale agreement holder to that of respondents 1 and 2 herein and therefore he is a necessary and proper party to the suit in O.S.No.410 of 2005 initiated by the respondents 1 and 2 against the third respondent/defendant therein and that the respondents 1 and 2 in the suit in O.S.No.410 of 2005 has suppressed the material fact regarding the earlier sale agreement entered into between the revision petitioner and the third respondent herein and to avoid plurality of the proceedings, the revision petitioner is a proper and necessary party. 5. At this stage, it is to be noted that in a civil suit filed by the plaintiff, generally, the plaintiff is the dominus litus. However, this is not an absolute rule. As a matter of fact, the object of Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC is to avoid plurality of the proceedings. But in a suit for specific performance, admittedly, the parties to the contract are the proper and necessary parties in the considered opinion of this Court. 6. As far as the present case is concerned, O.S.No.410 of 2005 has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein against the third respondent/defendant. Therefore, in the present suit filed by the respondents 1 and 2 as against the third respondent/defendant, the revision petitioner is only a stranger and not a necessary and proper party in the considered opinion of this Court. It is always open to the revision petitioner/proposed party to file a suit for specific performance on the basis of his claim that he is the prior sale agreement holder against the third respondent/defendant before the appropriate forum seeking appropriate relief in the manner known to law and in that view of the matter, this revision petition fails and the same is dismissed without costs. 7. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. The order passed by the trial Court in I.A.SR.No.2272 of 2008 in O.S.No.410 of 2005 is affirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this revision. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 is also dismissed.