Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 5 (MAD)

K. Alagusundaram v. Ganga @ Gangabai

2013-01-02

G.RAJASURIA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 13.08.2012, passed in unnumbered I.A. No… of 2012 in O.S.No.468 of 2007, by the learned District Munsif, Thirumangalam. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner. 3. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner placing reliance on the records would echo the grievance of his client to the effect that his client filed an unnumbered I.A. under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure with the following prayer: "For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to pass an order to implead the petitioner/proposed party as ninth plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.468 of 2007 on the file of this Hon'ble Court in which the particulars of the petitioner is described hereunder and thus render justice. PARTICULARS OF THE PROPOSED PARTY Mr. K. Alagusundaram, Son of Late Kandasamy, Hindu, aged about 45 years and residing at Door No.13/29, Palaniyandavar Koil street, Thirupparankundram, Madurai-5." and that application was dismissed by the trial Court by passing the following order: "Counsel for the petitioner not present. Sufficient opportunity given to appear. Today the suit is dismissed s not pressed. Hence, this petition is not entertainable. Hence petition is rejected." 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the lower Court, the Civil Revision Petition has been focussed on various grounds. 5. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that his client is an agreement holder concerning the suit property and he is in possession of it, whereas the plaintiff in that suit falsely claimed as though he was in possession and when the said unnumbered I.A. was filed for getting the revision petitioner impleaded as one of the defendants, the lower Court simply rejected that application with an endorsement that the suit itself was not pressed. 6. Absolutely there is nothing wrong in the order passed by the lower Court. 7. At this stage, I would recollect the following legal maxims: (i) "Res inter alios judicatae nullum aliis praejudicium faciunt." [Matters adjudged in the lawsuits of others do not prejudice those who were not parties to them.] (ii) "Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet." [Things done between others ought not to injure an outsider (non party to them).] 8. At this stage, I would recollect the following legal maxims: (i) "Res inter alios judicatae nullum aliis praejudicium faciunt." [Matters adjudged in the lawsuits of others do not prejudice those who were not parties to them.] (ii) "Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet." [Things done between others ought not to injure an outsider (non party to them).] 8. The sum and substance of the aforesaid legal maxims is to the effect that a person who is not a party to a proceeding will not be bound by any order emerging out of such proceeding. 9. Here, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking injunction and the same plaintiff endorsed the suit as not pressed. Whereupon, the suit was dismissed. In such a case, the question of a third party, who is the revision petitioner herein, calling upon the Court to retain the suit and allow him viz., the revision petitioner to get impleaded and get adjudicated the lis on merits, is a well-neigh impossibility. It is for the revision petitioner to work out his remedy by instituting fresh proceedings as per law, if so advised. 10. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.