Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1300 (MAD)

Raviselvan v. Varatharaja Bhoopathy

2016-03-28

V.M.VELUMANI

body2016
ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 08.12.2015, passed by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, made in I.A.No.125 of 2014 in A.S.No.79 of 2013. 2. The petitioner is the third party in A.S.No.79 of 2013. The petitioner filed I.A.No.125 of 2014, for impleading himself as a party respondent to the appeal, on the ground that he is the subsequent purchaser and therefore, he is necessary party to decide the issue. The learned Judge considering all the materials on record, dismissed the application holding that for the issue involved in the first appeal, the respondent is not a necessary party. Against the said order of dismissal, the present civil revision petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Judge erred in dismissing the application on the ground that the suit relates to only Section 14 of Patta Pass Book Act and the petitioner is not necessary party in the appeal. The learned Judge failed to see that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser and at present, he is the owner of the schedule mentioned property. The learned Judge failed to see that the interest of the petitioner is curtailed and in the interest of justice, the learned Judge ought to have allowed the application. 4. The learned counsel for the first respondent has no objection to allow the civil revision petition. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 filed a detailed counter affidavit and submitted that the respondents 2 and 3 filed a suit in O.S.No.297 of 2010 for declaration, to declare the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.721 of 2008 as null and void. The learned Judge, by judgment dated 15.07.2013, decreed the suit. Against the said Judgment and Decree, the first respondent filed A.S.No.79 of 2013 on the file II Additional Subordinate Court, Nagercoil. When the first appeal was posted for final hearing, the first respondent with an intention to drag on the proceedings, sold very negligible extent of property, i.e., less than 1 cent to the petitioner and two other persons. The petitioner and 2 other persons filed I.A.Nos.125 of 2014, 788 of 2014 and 128 of 2015, to implead them as subsequent purchasers in the appeal. The petitioner and 2 other persons filed I.A.Nos.125 of 2014, 788 of 2014 and 128 of 2015, to implead them as subsequent purchasers in the appeal. The learned Judge has properly appreciated the facts and circumstances, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and two others and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the civil revision petition. 6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. It is seen from the materials on record that the respondents 2 and 3 obtained a decree in O.S.No.297 of 2010, declaring the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.721 of 2008, dated 15.04.2010, as null and void and permanent injunction against the revenue officials. Against the said Judgment and Decree, the first respondent filed first appeal in A.S.No.79 of 2013. After filing the first appeal, the first respondent sold small extent of property to the petitioner and two others. The issue to be decided in the first appeal is whether the suit in O.S.No.721 of 2008 filed by the first respondent is barred as per Section 9 of C.P.C. and that the decree, dated 15.04.2010, is null and void. To decide the said issue, the petitioner is not a necessary party. Further, taking into consideration, only a smaller extent, i.e., less than 1 cent sold to the petitioner and others, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 that only to drag on the proceedings, the sale was effected and application for impleading is filed, is acceptable. In the circumstances, there is no irregularity or illegality in the order, dated 08.12.2015, passed by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, in I.A.No.125 of 2014 in A.S.No.79 of 2013, warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.