Madras High Court
A.D. Murugan vs H.M. Foundations Private Limited on 15 April, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 15.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
C.R.P.No. 796 of 2021 and
C.M.P.No.6669 of 2021
A.D. Murugan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.H.M. Foundations Private Limited,
Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, Mr.Ashok Dhanraj,
2. K.Vasantha ... Respondents
Prayer:
Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Civil Procedure
Code, to set aside the order dated 15.12.2020 in I.A. No.7 of 2019 in
O.S.No.3116 of 2019 on the file of XVI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.N.Nataraaj
For Respondents : No Appearance
-----
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
ORDER
The plaintiff in O.S.No.3116 of 2019, now pending with the XVI
Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, is the revision petitioner herein.
2. The suit in O.S.No.3116 of 2019 has been filed by the plaintiff
viz., A.D. Murugan against the defendant Mrs. K.Vasantha seeking permanent
injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, either by forcible
eviction or otherwise, execpt by due process of law and also for the costs of the
suit.
3. The plaintiff claims that he has been a tenant in the suit property,
which is a vacant land bearing Old Door No.638, New No.682, Poonamallee
High Road, Ponnuvel Pillai Thootam, Chinnakoodal Village, Aminjikarai,
Chennai - 600 029, measuring an extent of 5 ground 480 sqft. The plaintiff
claims that the parties to the proceedings had entered into a rental agreement
from 08.01.2010 and the rental agreement had also been renewed by the
defendant Mrs.K.Vasantha. The plaintiff claims that he has been regularly
paying the monthly rent of Rs.20,000/- without any default. However, the
plaintiff further claims that, on 10.05.2019, the defendant had threatened to dis-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
possess the plaintiff, and hence the suit had been filed seeking the relief as
stated above.
4. A written statement had also been filed by the defendant. The
defendant had stated that she has no intention of evicting the plaintiff from the
possession of the plaintiff's property without due process of law.
5. When the suit is pending, I.A.No.7 of 2019 came to be filed by a
third party namely, M/s.H.M.Foundation Private Limited. In the said
application, the said third party claimed that they had puchased the entire
property in the year 2015 itself and were also in possession and according to
the third party, there is a possibility of marking forged documents before the
Court below. As a matter of fact, the proposed defendant/third party had also
allegedly cleared the bank loans obtained by the defendant. Thereafter, steps
also had been taken and the third party is alleged to have purchased the suit
property and claims to be in possession of the property.
6. The said application in I.A.No.7 of 2019 came to be allowed by the
learned trial Judge, by giving credible reasons, permitting impleadment of the
proposed defendant/third party under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CPC. It had been stated that without the presence of the said third party's,
adjudication regarding cannot be determined and that they are a necessary party
to the suit proceedings.
7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff stated that the suit had been
filed for possession being interfered without due process of law. It had been
stated that if the said third party comes into the picture as the second defendant,
then he may claim title without paying any Court fees. It is the further case of
the plaintiff that his rights would be defeated.
8. I find that the original defendant had suppressed vital information,
wherein claims were pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal with respect
to loans obtained from the Indian Bank and the said third party had cleared the
loans and had also purchased the property in the year 2015 itself even prior to
the suit.
9. When once there are allegations of suppression raised by the
proposed defendant, then they will necessarily have to be impleaded to clear
such allegations.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
10. As per Order 1 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a person can
be impleaded as a defendant even though he may not be directly interested in
the 'lis'.
11. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned
Judge, who had allowed an I.A.No.7 of 2019 holding that the proposed party is
a necessary defendant. As a purchaser of the property, even prior to the suit,
they are a necessary party and will have to be necessarily impleaded so as to
participate in the trial proceedings.
12. Thus, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Court
below. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order
as to costs. Consequently, conncted Miscellaneous Petition is closed. However,
it is made clear if any judgment is passed in favour of the plainitff herein, then
it will also bind the proposed third party/impleaded second defendant.
15.04.2021
Index:Yes/No
Web:Yes/No
Speaking order : Yes / No
msm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
msm
C.R.P.No. 796 of 2021 and
C.M.P.No.6669 of 2021
15.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
