Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 4767 (MAD)

D. S. Mariappan & Others v. N. Manoharan & Others

2008-12-22

M.VENUGOPAL

body2008
Judgment :- 1. Defendants 1, 3 to 5 and the proposed parties viz., defendants 12 and 13 are the civil revision petitioners before this Court. The civil revision petitioners herein have filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 22.08.2006 in I.A.No.1426 of 2004 passed by the District Munsif Court, Dharapuram in allowing the application filed by the respondents 1 and others/plaintiffs before the trial Court under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code. 2. The trial Court, while allowing the I.A.No.1426, has inter alia observed that if the proposed parties/ respondents 6 to 13 therein are added as parties to the suit then only the real details pertaining to the sale deeds can come to light for the purpose of arriving at a decision in the main suit and resultantly, allowed the application by impleading respondents 6 to 13 as necessary parties in the suit. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners herein urges before this Court that the order passed by the trial Court in allowing I.A.No.1426 of 2004 is contrary to law and an erroneous one and that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the essential ingredients of Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code and that the proposed parties are neither necessary or proper parties for settling the controversies involved in the suit and this aspect of the matter has not been looked into by the trial Court in a proper perspective and that the impleading application has been filed only to protract the proceedings before the trial Court and that the trial Court has not taken note of the fact that the plaintiffs have purchased the lands with definite boundaries and they are in possession of the lands and further no cause of action has arisen even for filing of the suit and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition in the interest of justice. 4. It is to be noted that between the parties earlier C.R.P.No.1251 of 1994, C.R.P.No.1368 of 1995, C.R.P.No.145 of 1996, C.R.P.No.992 of 1997, W.P.No.16757 of 1997, C.R.P.No.3257 of 2000, C.R.P.No.3548 of 2000, C.R.P.No.3379 of 2000 and W.P.No.20101 of 2003 proceedings have taken place and it transpires that the plaintiffs have filed amended plaint and that the proposed parties have also filed the written statements and that additional issues have also been framed and the suit is ripe for trial. However, in view of the pendency of the civil revision petition, the trial Court has not proceeded further in regard to the conduct of the suit O.S.No.454 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dharapuram. 5. It cannot be gainsaid that addition of parties is a matter of discretion of the trial Court. It is true that the plaintiff is the dominus litus in a civil suit but the same is not an absolute rule. Equally, it is a well settled principal of law that the Court has wide power to include any person as a necessary party in the suit to enable the Court to effectively resolve the question involved in the suit. However, while exercising such power under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code, the Court has come to a definite finding that the parties are necessary parties or proper parties. Of course, the inclusion of parties will largely depend upon the exercise of judicial discretion by a trial Court, which has to be exercised based on the overall facts and cumulative circumstances of a given case. 6. In the present case on hand, the trial Court has exercised its discretion by allowing the interlocutory application. The trial Court in para 7 of its order has come to a definite conclusion that only if respondents 6 to 13 are added as parties in the suit then only the Court will be in a position to enquire about the sale deeds filed by them and the Court will have also an occasion to look into the validity of the same and this can only be done in the conduct of the suit and when the suit itself has been filed for the relief of declaration and possession, then the application filed by the proposed parties is accepted and resultantly, allowed the application. Moreover, the Court has also averred specifically that respondents 6 to 10, 12 and 13 have got the sale deeds which includes the properties belonging to the proposed parties and therefore, they are to be included as necessary parties. 7. Moreover, the Court has also averred specifically that respondents 6 to 10, 12 and 13 have got the sale deeds which includes the properties belonging to the proposed parties and therefore, they are to be included as necessary parties. 7. After going through the order passed by the trial Court and in view of the various CRP and WP orders that have come into existence between the parties, this Court is of the considered view that without the presence of the proposed parties, the contentions in the suit cannot be decided properly and therefore, for an effective determination of the lis between the parties and the proposed parties, the proposed parties are not only necessary but also proper parties so that the controversies can be trashed out completely and comprehensively putting a quietus to the issues once and for all and in that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the trial Court and resultantly, the civil revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. 8. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.1426 of 2004 is affirmed for the reasons assigned by this Court in this revision. It is open to all the parties to the litigation to raise all factual/legal contentions before the trial Court in the manner known to law and the trial Court is directed to provide adequate opportunities to all the parties and further, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the main suit within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and to report compliance. Moreover, the parties shall cooperate with the trial Court in regard to the completion of the proceedings. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.