Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 722 (MAD)

Muthusamy v. Perumal Gounder

2014-03-21

R.KARUPPIAH

body2014
Judgment 1. The revision petitioners who are proposed parties in the implead petition in I.A.No.338 of 2005, filed this revision petition against the order and decreetal order of I Additional District Munsif Court, Namakkal, in O.S.No.16 of 2003 dated 26.07.2005. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for revision petitioners and the respondents 1 to 4. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that the respondents 1 to 4 filed a suit in O.S.No.16 of 2003 seeking relief of declaration and other reliefs in respect of pathway and during the pendency of the suit, the respondents have filed an I.A.No.338 of 2005 to implead the revision petitioners as proposed defendants in the suit. The main contention of the revision petitioners is that the respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs filed the implead petition in which, it is alleged that the revision petitioners have attempted to restrain the respondents during the pendency of the suit i.e., on 06.03.2005 onwards and therefore, the respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs should have been filed a separate suit and not entitled to file implead petition in the suit, since it is a different cause of action. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that admittedly, at the time of filing the suit, the revision petitioners have not disturbed the possession, but during the pendency of the suit, they are attempted to interfere with the possession and therefore, to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, the revision petitioners are necessary parties in the suit. The learned counsel further pointed out that the relevant portion in CPC (i.e.,) Order 1 Rule 10 Sub-rule (2) and submitted that the revision petitioners are entitled to implead the proposed parties as defendants in the suit itself, in order to enable the Court to settle all the questions involved in this suit. The learned counsel further pointed out that the relevant portion in CPC (i.e.,) Order 1 Rule 10 Sub-rule (2) and submitted that the revision petitioners are entitled to implead the proposed parties as defendants in the suit itself, in order to enable the Court to settle all the questions involved in this suit. The relevant provisions in Order 1 Rule 10 Sub-rule (2) reads as under:- "10(2) Court may strike out or add parties:- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added." 5. A careful reading of the above said provisions revealed that the revision petitioners are necessary parties to implead in the suit to settle all the questions involved in this suit as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4. The trial court has also discussed in detail about the averments made in the affidavit and counter and permitted to implead the revision petitioners as parties in the suit. It is not in dispute that even prior to filing the implead petition, the revision petitioners have filed caveat petitions and objection also filed and the revision petitioners denied the rights of the respondents 1 to 4. In the above said circumstances, the revision petitioners are necessary parties to implead in the suit. 6. The next contention of the revision petitioner is that the respondents 1 to 4 have not averred anything in the plaint against the revision petitioners and in the affidavit also not specifically stated any reason for impleading the revision petitioners and also in the prayer, the respondents 1 to 4 have not seeking specific relief against the revision petitioners and therefore, the above said petition is not maintainable. 7. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 submitted that this petition is filed only to implead as party in the suit and reason also stated in the affidavit. Only after allowing the petition, the respondents 1 to 4 are entitled to file amendment petition with all particulars. It is further stated that already relief sought for in the plaint are sufficient and therefore, there is no need to add any other prayer and hence, the above said contention cannot be accepted. 8. Considering the points raised by both sides, this Court is of the view that the trial court has correctly discussed and allowed the implead petition and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the above said findings of the trial court. 9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is also closed.