Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2368 (MAD)

V. Murugasamy v. K. B. Mani

2011-04-26

M.JAICHANDREN

body2011
Judgment :- 1. These review applications had been filed against the order passed by this Court, on 5.4.2010, in C.R.P.(PD) No.850 of 2010. 2. The civil revision petition, in C.R.P.(PD) No.850 of 2010, had been filed against the order, dated 6.1.2010, made in I.A.No.1231 of 2009, in O.S.No.35 of 2005, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palladam. 3. The main ground on which the civil revision petition had been filed is that the Court below had erroneously dismissed the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.1231 of 2009, filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to implead the respondents 38 to 43 therein, as defendants 38 to 43 in the suit, in O.S.No.35 of 2005, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palladam. 4. It had also been stated that the said interlocutory application had been dismissed without even issuing notice to the proposed parties, who are just and necessary parties for the complete adjudication of the suit. 5. This Court, on hearing the rival contentions, had found it appropriate to set aside the order, dated 6.1.2010, made in I.A.No.1231 of 2009, and had directed the District Munsif Court, Palladaam, to implead the respondents 38 to 43 in the civil revision petition, as defendants 38 to 43 in the suit, in O.S.No.35 of 2005, as prayed for in I.A.No.1231 of 2009. Accordingly, the civil revision petition had been allowed. 6. This Court had passed a detailed order, dated 5.4.2010, considering all the issues arising for its consideration. This Court had found it appropriate to direct the Court below to implead the parties concerned in the suit for the proper adjudication of the said suit. Even if such an order had been passed without notice to the proposed parties sought to be impleaded, no real or perceptible harm would be done to them, merely for the reason that they would be arrayed as defendants in the suit, in O.S.No.35 of 2005. 7. Even if such an order had been passed without notice to the proposed parties sought to be impleaded, no real or perceptible harm would be done to them, merely for the reason that they would be arrayed as defendants in the suit, in O.S.No.35 of 2005. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants in the Review Application No.88 of 2010, had prayed that the order passed by this Court, on 5.4.2010, in C.R.P. (PD) No.850 of 2010, may be reviewed, by passing an order to restore the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.1231 of 2009, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palladam, in O.S.No.35 of 2005, with the direction that appropriate notice may be issued to the proposed respondents therein and to decide the matter, after giving an opportunity to the respondents therein, to file a counter and by fixing a time limit for the disposal of the said interlocutory application. However, this Court does not find it appropriate to pass such an order, at this stage. 8. Even though it has been pointed out that the order, dated 5.4.2010, had been passed without hearing the respondents 4 and 6 in the civil revision petition, who are the applicants in the Review Application No.88 of 2010, it is seen that the said applicants had been heard through their counsels, at the stage of the hearing of the civil revision petition. Hence, it is not open to the applicants in the Review Application No.88 of 2010, to state that they had not been heard before the order had been passed, in C.R.P.(PD) No. 850 of 2010, dated 5.4.2010. Therefore, the grounds raised by the applicants are devoid of merits and therefore, they deserve no consideration by this Court. 9. Insofar as the review application No.118 of 2010, is concerned, even if no notice had been sent to the applicant, who was respondent No.41 in the civil revision petition, and no opportunity had been given to him to put forth his case before this Court, it cannot be said that real prejudice has been caused to him by his being impleaded as a party to the suit, in O.S.No.35 of 2005, pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palladam, by the order passed by this Court, on 5.4.2010, in C.R.P.(PD) No.850 of 2010. It goes without saying that it would be open to the impleaded parties to raise all the necessary objections available to them in the written statements that may be filed by them in the suit, in O.S.No.35 of 2005, if they are so advised. 10. Further, it is for the trial Court to pass an appropriate judgment and decree in the suit, in O.S.No.35 of 2005, after considering the rival contentions of the parties concerned. Even otherwise, it is a settled position in law that the review jurisdiction of this Court is limited in nature, as held by the Supreme Court, in Inderchand Jain V. Motilal Jain (2009 AIR SCW 5364). As such, this Court is of the considered view that no grounds have been made out by the petitioners for this Court to invoke its review jurisdiction. Accordingly, as the above review applications are devoid of merits, they stand dismissed. No costs.