Madras High Court
D.R.Elangovan vs K.M.S.Kumaraswamy on 22 December, 2021
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.2085 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.2085 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.11097 of 2021
and
Caveat No.2140 of 2019
D.R.Elangovan .. Petitioner/1st Respondent/
Appellant
-vs-
1.K.M.S.Kumaraswamy
2.K.Rajalakshmi
3.S.Adaikkalam
4.A.Rajeshwari
5.A.Venkateshwaran
6.A.Balasubramanian
7.A.Gayathri .. Respondents 1 to 7/
Respondents 2 to 8/
Respondents 1 to 7
8.L.Govindaraj .. 8th Respondent/
Petitioner/3rd Party
Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to
set aside the fair order and decretal order dated 15.07.2019 made in
I.A.No.50 of 2018 in A.S.No.19 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate
Judge, Pattukkottai.
_________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.2085 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kasirajan
For Respondent-8 : Mr.B.Saravanan
******
ORDER
The petitioner, who is the appellant in A.S.No.19 of 2014, is
aggrieved by the order, dated 15.07.2019 passed by the learned
Subordinate Judge, Pattukottai in I.A.No.50 of 2018 in and by which the
application filed by the 8th respondent herein to implead himself as a
party respondent to the appeal was allowed.
2.The facts in brief are as follows:-
2.1.The revision petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.144 of 2011
on the file of the learned District Munsif, Pattukottai for a mandatory
injunction directing the defendants and their Power Agent to execute and
register the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominees in
compliance of the terms of the three sale agreements dated 26.02.1997
and two other agreements dated 26.09.1999 entered into between the
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.2085 of 2021
plaintiff and the defendants in respect of the suit schedule properties and
for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering
with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
3.The 1st respondent had taken out an application in I.A.No.583 of
2011 to reject the plaint in O.S.No.144 of 2011. The 1 st respondent
sought to have the plaint rejected on the ground that the plaint is barred
under the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code and the suit
is also barred by limitation. The 1st respondent had also raised the issue
of the suit having been undervalued and consequently, the wrong Court
fee having been paid.
4.The petitioner herein has opposed the said application
vehemently and contended that the suit has to go through trial, as the
defences raised were triable issues. The learned District Munsif,
Pattukottai, by his order, dated 07.10.2013 was pleased to allow the
application and consequently, the plaint was rejected.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.2085 of 2021
5.Challenging the said order, the revision petitioner had filed
A.S.No.19 of 2014 on the file of the Sub Court, Pattukottai. Pending this
appeal, the 8th respondent/3rd party has come forward with the impugned
application to implead himself stating that he has purchased the property
under a Sale Deed dated 24.10.2016 for a valid consideration and has
also taken possession of the same. He would contend that he has also
formed a layout in the said suit property and sold it to the third parties
and gifted portions of the properties for the authorities for laying roads
and culverts etc. Therefore, he is a bona fide purchaser of value and
therefore, his interest has to be protected and he has to be brought on
record.
6.The revision petitioner resisted the above application stating that
the 8th respondent was only a pendente lite purchaser and therefore, there
is no necessity to implead him as a party respondent.
7.The learned Subordinate Judge, Pattukottai, by order, dated
15.07.2019 had allowed the said application, which is subject matter of
challenge in the present revision by the plaintiff/petitioner herein.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.2085 of 2021
8.Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the
proposed party was only a purchaser pendente lite and he was neither
proper, nor a necessary party to the appeal. Learned counsel for the
petitioner also relied upon a judgment in Thomson Press (India) Ltd.,
vs. Nanak Builders & Investors P. Ltd. & others reported in 2013 (2)
CTC 104,
9.Learned counsel for the 8th respondent would submit that the
petitioner has himself taken out an application in I.A.No.2 of 2015 to
implead the 8th respondent herein and others as respondents in the appeal
in A.S.No.19 of 2014, which was thereafter not pressed. The appellant
himself having taken out the application, is therefore, estopped from now
objecting to the instant application.
10.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
counsel for the 8th respondent and perused the records.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.2085 of 2021
11.In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in Thomson Press (India) Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) gives a wider
discretion to the Court to meet every case or defect of a party and to
proceed with a person who is either a necessary or proper party and
whose presence is essential for an effective determination of the issues
involved in the suit. It is an admitted fact that the 8th respondent herein
had purchased the property only after the rejection of the plaint and prior
to the institution of the first appeal. Therefore, this Court is of the
opinion that the 8th respondent can step into the shoes of respondents 2 to
4, who had sold the property to him and the order impleading him does
not suffer from any irregularity.
12.The learned Judge has rightly allowed the impugned application
on the ground that the 8th respondent's right is substantially covered in
the appeal and therefore, he ought to be impleaded as party respondent.
Further, the objection raised by the plaintiff is totally untenable
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.2085 of 2021
especially, in view of the constructive estoppel pursuant to I.A.No.2 of
2015 moved by him.
13.In view of the above, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
It is made clear that the 8th respondent, who is a purchaser subsequent to
the rejection of the plaint, would only step into the shoes of respondents
2 to 4 and would therefore, be bound by the pleadings and evidence
submitted by them. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
22.12.2021
abr
Note:-
In view of the present lock down owing
to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
Advocate / litigant concerned.
To
The Sub Court, Pattukottai.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.2085 of 2021
P.T.ASHA, J.
abr
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.2085 of 2021
Dated: 22.12.2021
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
