Madras High Court
Vadivel vs Veerappan on 1 April, 2021
CRP.NPD.No.3548 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRP.NPD.No.3548 of 2017 &
CMP.No.16411 of 2017
Vadivel, S/o.Munusamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Veerappan, S/o. Late Radhakrishnan
2. Haridoss ... Respondents
PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.232 of
2014 in I.A.No.215 of 2012 in O.S.No.3 of 2010 before the District Munsif
Court, Thiruvallur, dated 11.01.2017.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Balaji
For Respondent : No appearance
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the order passed in
I.A.No.232 of 2014 in I.A.No.215 of 2012 in O.S.No.3 of 2010 dated
11.01.2017 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruvallur, thereby
allowing the petition to implead the first respondent herein as the party in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.3548 of 2017
the final decree proceedings.
2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the second respondent is the
defendant. The petitioner filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.3 of 2010 and
the same was duly contested by the second respondent and decreed by the
judgment and decree dated 13.09.2010. Pursuant to the preliminary decree,
the petitioner filed an application to pass final decree in I.A.No.215 of 2012
and in the said application, the court below appointed an Advocate
Commissioner and he also filed a report. At this juncture, the first
respondent filed a petition to implead him as party to the final decree
proceedings. He claims that he is the brother of the second respondent and
their father and the petitioner's father are brothers.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in respect of
the suit property, the patta was granted in favour of the petitioner and the
second respondent alone and as such, though the first respondent is the
brother of the second respondent, he has no right or title over the property
and he is not entitled to any share. The Court below rightly allowed the
petition for the reason that the final decree proceedings is nothing but
continuation of the suit for partition. Till the passing of final decree, it has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.3548 of 2017
to be considered as pending suit. As per Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of
Civil Procedure, a necessary party can be impleaded in the suit at any stage
of proceedings. Therefore, admittedly, the first respondent is none other
than the brother of the second respondent. Whether he is having share over
the suit property or not, is to be decided in the final decree proceedings. On
that score, the court below allowed the application and impleaded the first
respondent as party to the final decree proceedings. Therefore, this Court
finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the court below.
4. Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. However,
the suit is of the year 2010 and therefore, the court below is directed to
dispose of the suit in O.S.No.3 of 2010 pending on the file of the District
Munsif Court, Thiruvallur, within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
01.04.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
kal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.3548 of 2017
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
kal
To
The District Munsif Court,
Thiruvallur.
CRP.NPD.No.3548 of 2017 &
CMP.No.16411 of 2017
01.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
