Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2663 (MAD)

T. Neelamma v. Shanthamma

2012-06-27

G.RAJASURIA

body2012
JUDGMENT:- 1. Animadverting upon the order dated 29.6.2011 passed by the Sub-Court, Hosur, in I.A.No.89 of 2009 in A.S.No.23 of 2009, this revision petition has been filed. 2. The long and short of the germane facts, in a few broad stroke, can be encapsulated thus: (i) The suit O.S.No.64 of 2002 was filed by as many as six plaintiffs, namely, 1.Nanjundappa, 2.Shanthamma, 3.Parvathamma, 4.Siddaraj, 5.Kumar and 6.Nagaraj, as against the sole defendant-Neelamma/the revision petitioner herein. The suit was ultimately dismissed. (ii) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the appeal was filed only by plaintiffs 2 and 3 by figuring themselves as appellants 1 and 2 and arraying the defendant as R1 and the original remaining plaintiffs 1, 4 to 6 as respondents 2 to 5. An application in I.A.NO.89 of 2009 also was filed with the following prayer: "to permit us to transpose the respondents/plaintiffs 1, 4,5 and 6 as proforma defendants in view of the respondents/plaintiffs 1, 4, 5 & 6 having executed a sale deed in our favour under the sale deed dated 26.7.2007 in Document No.3326/2007 of Book-I, of the office of the Sub Registrar, Denkanikotta and may further be pleased to permit us, the petitioners/plaintiffs 2, 3 to implead our vendors/plaintiffs 1, 4, 5 and 6 as respondents in the above appeal in order to effectually and completely adjudicate and settle all the questions involved in the appeal." (iii) After hearing both sides, the Court passed the order allowing the application. 3. As against the said order, this revision is focused by the defendant on various grounds. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant would put forth and set forth his arguments, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus: (i) Pendente lite, allegedly the plaintiffs 1, 4 to 6 executed a sale deed in favour of plaintiffs 2 and 3 transferring the suit property and such a fact is a cooked up and concocted one, purely for the purpose of giving an impression as though the appellants in the appeal/plaintiffs 2 and 3 acquired title to the suit property. (ii) Without any basis and sound reason, the appellate Court simply allowed the application, warranting interference in revision. 5. (ii) Without any basis and sound reason, the appellate Court simply allowed the application, warranting interference in revision. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs 2 and 3 would put forth and set forth his arguments, the gist and kernal of them would run thus: (i) Absolutely the order passed by the lower Court is an innocuous one and that in no way it prejudices the right, if any, of the sole defendant. (ii) The appellate Court is going to adjudicate the lis based on the cause of action, which existed as on the date of filing of the suit and the subsequent transfer that took place among the plaintiffs was not going to have any bearing on the final adjudication and in such a case, there is no rhyme or reason on the part of the revision petitioner/defendant in raising objection to the said order passed by the appellate Court and as such, no interference by this Court is required in this revision. 6. Respondents 3 to 6 remained ex-parte even in the lower Court and no notice to them is required. 7. The point for consideration is as to whether the appellate Court was justified in passing such an order based on the alleged sale deed, which emerged among the plaintiffs, pendente lite? 8. I would like to clarify the law point at the out set itself by pointing out that as against the dismissal of a suit, there is no necessity that all the original plaintiffs should file the appeal. It is open for one or more plaintiffs among several plaintiffs to file an appeal, arraying the remaining plaintiffs as respondents along with the defendant, in the appeal memorandum. In this case such a course was resorted to. With that, the appellants in the appeal/plaintiffs 2 and 3 could have simply proceeded further and got the appeal processed. However, by way of over reaching themselves, they did choose to file I.A.No.89 of 2009, which erupted disagreement between the appellants/plaintiffs 2 and 3 and the defendant. 9. As has been correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 herein/plaintiffs 2 and 3, the appellate Court is expected to decide the appeal based on the cause of action, which existed as on the date of filing of the suit. 9. As has been correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 herein/plaintiffs 2 and 3, the appellate Court is expected to decide the appeal based on the cause of action, which existed as on the date of filing of the suit. Any pendente lite transfer among the plaintiffs relating to the suit property would not weigh with the Court also. In such a case, I am of the considered view that the filing of such application for getting permission for citing the non-appellants/plaintiffs as respondents, was not warranted. As such, the cause title in the appeal memorandum is perfectly in order and the order passed in the interlocutory application is therefore set aside and the I.A.No.89 of 2009 shall stand dismissed. 10. With the above observation, the civil revision petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. However, there is no order as to costs.