Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2567 (MAD)

Vijayan v. D. Raja Prabaharan

2017-08-10

T.RAVINDRAN

body2017
ORDER : 1. The revision petitioner/plaintiff has laid the suit for permanent injunction claiming that he is in possession of the property concerned as the cultivating tenant. Pending suit, it appears that certain defendants have been impleaded and as of now there are five defendants in the suit. 2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein claiming that they have purchased the suit property pendente lite from the sixth respondent by way of a sale deed, dated 21.01.2013, preferred an application, in I.A. No. 290 of 2017, to get themselves impleaded as defendants 6 and 7 in the suit proceedings so that the issue involved in the matter could be adjudicated in their presence. 3. The said application was resisted by the revision petitioner/plaintiff contending that they having purchased the suit property pendente lite, any decision that would be taken in the suit would also equally bind on them and in such view of the matter, there is no need for the impleadment of the proposed parties as defendants 6 and 7 in the suit proceedings and further, according to the revision petitioner/plaintiff, the present application has been preferred with a view to delay the proceedings and as the matter is already at the part-heard stage, if the defendants one after the another are getting impleaded, the lis would not come to a quietus and hence, the revision petitioner/plaintiff sought for dismissal of the application. 4. Considering the rival contentions put forth by the respective parties, it is found by the Court below that as of now and according to the respondents 1 and 2/proposed parties, they are the real owners of the property concerned and also in the light of the rival contentions put forth by them and also considering the scope and nature of the reliefs sought for in the suit and in the interest of justice and to give a binding and effective adjudication to all the issues involved in the matter, the proposed parties are proper and necessary parties in the suit proceedings and accordingly, the Court below entertained the application preferred by the respondents 1 and 2/proposed parties. Impugning the same, the present civil revision petition has come to be preferred. 5. Impugning the same, the present civil revision petition has come to be preferred. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff that the suit is not allowed to come to a conclusion by getting one after the another impleaded on one pretext or the other and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Further, according to him, the revision petitioner/plaintiff having purchased the property pendente lite any decision that would be taken in the suit would also equally bind on them, accordingly, there is no need for the impleadement of the respondents 1 and 2/proposed parties. 6. In this connection, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner placed reliance upon the decision reported in S. Kumudham vs. R. Rajendiran and Another, 2012 (3) MWN (Civil) 482. The principles of law outlined in the above said decision are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. 7. Considering the fact that the respondents 1 and 2/proposed parties have admittedly purchased the property concerned, it is found that they are also proper and necessary parties and that apart as rightly determined by the Court below, when the presence of the proposed parties is essential for giving quietus to the matter and to effect a binding and proper adjudication of the issues involved in the matter, the Court below entertained the application preferred by the respondents 1 and 2/proposed parties. The said order is found to be correct in all aspects both factually as well as legally. In my considered opinion, it does not warrant any interference from this court. 8. Resultantly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. Consequently, connected civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.