Madras High Court
Adhilakshmi vs Rajendiran Reddiar on 7 December, 2021
CRP.PD.No.615/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
CRP.PD.No.615/2019 & CMP.No.4116/2019
[Hybrid Mode]
1.Adhilakshmi
2.Vedagiri
3.Veerasamy .. Petitioners /
Plaintiffs 1, 3 to 5
Vs.
Munusamy Reddiar [Died]
1.Rajendiran Reddiar
2.Santhana Kumar
3.Baskar
4.Revathi
5.Selvi .. RR 1 to 5
/ Defendants
6.Perumal .. 6th Respondent
/ 2nd Plaintiff
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 04.10.2018 passed in
IA.No.1150/2018 in OS.No.305/2012 on the file of the Court of District
Munsiff, Madurantagam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1
CRP.PD.No.615/2019
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Sriram
For RR 1 to 5 : Mr.S.Senthilnathan
ORDER
(1) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated
04.10.2018 made in IA.No.1150/2018 in OS.No.305/2012 on the
file of the Court of the District Munsif, Maduranthagam.
(2) Plaintiffs 1, 3, 4 and 5 are the revision petitioners in the above Civil
Revision Petition. The revision petitioners along with the 6th
respondent herein filed a suit in OS.No.305/2012 on the file of the
learned District Munsif, Maduranthagam, for declaration of title
and for recovery of possession in respect of the suit property which
is also the subject matter of earlier suit in OS.No.349/2002 which
was filed by the 6th respondent herein for bare injunction.
(3) The revision petitioners claimed that they are the legal heirs of one
Thiru.Dhasiri. It is not in dispute that the 6th respondent herein is
also one of the sons of the said Thiru.Dhasiri. It is admitted that
the 6th respondent herein filed a suit earlier in OS.No.349/2002
before the same Court against the father of the 1 st defendant/1st
CRP.PD.No.615/2019
respondent for bare injunction. The said suit was dismissed on
merits.
(4) The revision petitioners herein filed IA.No.1150/2018 in
OS.No.305/2012 to transpose the 2nd plaintiff as the 7th defendant in
the said suit on the ground that the 2nd plaintiff who was examined
as PW1 in the previous suit in OS.No.349/2002, has deposed
against the interest of the revision petitioners herein. It is further
stated that the 2nd plaintiff had acted against their interest in the
previous suit in OS.No.349/2002 and therefore, he should be
transposed as the 7th defendant in the interest of justice and for an
effective adjudication. The said Interlocutory Application was
dismissed by the Lower Court and aggrieved by the same, the
present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
(5) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Lower
Court has failed to see the conflict of interest between the revision
petitioners and the 2nd plaintiff and therefore, the order passed by
the Lower Court is vitiated. It is further submitted by the learned
counsel that the plaintiffs have every right to chose their opponent
CRP.PD.No.615/2019
as Dominus Litis. The learned counsel also submitted that the
Lower Court failed to consider the serious prejudice that is caused
to the petitioners in view of the conflict of interest between the
revision petitioners and the 2nd plaintiff and that, the only remedy
available to the petitioners herein is to transpose the 2 nd plaintiff as
the 7th defendant.
(6) In paragraph No.7 of the plaint in OS.No.305/2012, the revision
petitioners have stated as follows:-
''7.The plaintiffs submit that the 2nd plaintiff
herein has filed a suit before this Hon'ble Court
against the 1st defendant in OS.No.349/2002 for the
relief of bare injunction which was dismissed by this
Hon'ble Court on the ground that the 2nd plaintiff was
not in the possession of the suit property on the date
of filing the above suit. Hence, the plaintiffs are
filing the present suit for the relief of declaration and
recovery of possession.''
(7) It is also admitted that the same counsel who is representing the
plaintiffs in the present suit, was engaged in OS.No.349/2002.
When the present suit is a continuation of OS.No.349/2002 as
CRP.PD.No.615/2019
alleged by the plaintiffs in the plaint, it can be taken that the
petitioners herein have identified themselves with the 2nd plaintiff
while drafting the plaint to show that they have a joint/common
cause of action against the respondents in the Civil Revision. The
revision petitioners have filed IA.No.1150/2018 for transposing the
2nd plaintiff as 7th defendant only when the respondents filed a
petition under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC based on the judgment and
decree in the previous suit in OS.No.349/2002. All these facts
clearly indicate that the petitioners herein seek to transpose the 2nd
plaintiff as the 7th defendant so as to escape from the legal
implications of the previous suit filed by the 6th respondent
herein/2nd plaintiff. Having admitted that the present suit is the
continuation of the earlier suit and that the same is filed for
recovery of possession after the dismissal of the earlier suit, this
Court is unable to find any bona fides in the application to
transpose the 2nd plaintiff as the 7th defendant.
(8) The Lower Court has dismissed the Interlocutory Application
mainly on the ground that the revision petitioners are aware of the
CRP.PD.No.615/2019
fact that the 2nd plaintiff had deposed against their interest. Since
the same counsel was again engaged to prosecute the present suit in
OS.No.305/2012, the revision petitioners cannot contend that they
have no knowledge about the statement given by the 2nd plaintiff
himself in the previous suit in OS.No.349/2002.
(9) For want of bona fides, this Court is unable to find any error in the
decision of the Lower Court in dismissing the Interlocutory
Application filed by the revision petitioners.
(10) In the result, the present Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
07.12.2021
AP
Internet : Yes
To
The District Munsif
Maduranthagam.
CRP.PD.No.615/2019
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
AP
CRP.PD.No.615/2019
07.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7
