Madras High Court
D.Sampathkumar vs R.C.Sekar on 6 January, 2021
C.M.A.No.2853 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.01.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.A.No.2853 of 2013
and
M.P No.1 of 2013
1.D.Sampathkumar
2.S.Uma
3.S.Sunil Kumar ..Appellants
Vs.
1.R.C.Sekar
2.S.Visalakshi
3.S.Leelavathy
4.S.Vahini
5.M.Venkatesan ..Respondents
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 of
CPC, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 05.04.2013 made in
I.A No.309 of 2012 in O.S No.18 of 2012 on the file of the Principal
District Judge, Krishnagiri.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2853 of 2013
For Appellant : Mr.R.Krishnaprasad
For M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates
For Respondents: Mr.N.E.A.Dinesh for R1
No Appearance for R2 to R5
JUDGMENT
The fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.309 of 2012 in
O.S.No.18 of 2012 dated 05.04.2013 is under challenge in the present
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. The defendants 9 to 11 are the appellants in the present Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal. The appellants are the defendants 9 to 11 in the
suit filed by one Dr.Girija in O.S. No.18 of 2012. The 4th defendant in
the suit namely, Mr.R.C.Sekar filed an interlocutory application in I.A
No.309 of 2012 in O.S No.18 of 2012 for appointment of receiver in
order to collect rent from the defendants 1 to 3. The trial Court
adjudicated the issues and appointed the receiver for the purpose of
collecting the rent. However, it is not clearly stated whether it should be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2853 of 2013
collected from the defendants 1 to 3 or from any other defendants.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in
the present appeal contended that no relief had been sought for against
the defendants 9 to 11 and therefore, they are not necessary parties as far
as the interlocutory application is concerned. It is further contended that
the 4th defendant filed an interlocutory application to collect the rent
which is no way connected with the defendants 9 to 11 and thus, no
error in respect of the order passed by the trial Court.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant made a
submission that once the appellants are parties to the suit itself, they got
every right to raise any objection in the interlocutory application. Any
interlocutory application filed in a suit cannot be taken away by deleting
the name of the parties in the cause title. It is proper on the part of the
trial Court in appointing receiver without even hearing the appellants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2853 of 2013
who are defendants 9 to 11 in the civil suit.
5. This Court is of the considered opinion that the interlocutory
application as well as the original suit are inseparable. Only during the
pendency of the civil suit interlocutory applications are to be entertained
for the grounds of interim relief or otherwise. Thus, all the interlocutory
applications considered by providing opportunity to the parties to the
main suit. Sometimes, the parties may of the opinion that one of the
defendant may not be a necessary party or no relief has been sought as
against such a defendant in the interlocutory application. Irrespective
of these factors, every defendant in a suit is entitled to submit his
defence even in an interlocutory application and such a right of defence
have taken away would amount to violation of principles of natural
justice. Once the person is a party to the suit, he must be aware of the
interlocutory applications and all the developments happening in the suit
and therefore, any one of the party cannot be deleted in an interlocutory
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2853 of 2013
application which would cause confusion and it would be difficult for
the Courts even to ascertain the rights in respect of all the parties.
6. At the outset, the question of deciding necessary party or
unnecessary party in an interlocutory application is impermissible. Once
a person is dependent in a civil suit, then he must be permitted to submit
his defence in all the interlocutory applications filed by any one of the
party to the suit and these principles have to be followed. The trial
Court had committed an error in passing an order without impleading all
the defendants in O.S No.18 of 2012. Thus, the contentions raised by
appellants in this appeal is acceptable.
7. In the result, the fair and decreetal order dated 05.04.2013 in
I.A.No.309 of 2012 in O.S No.18 of 2012 is set aside and the present
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2853 of 2013 stands allowed. No costs.
In view of the fact that the suit is pending for the past eight years, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2853 of 2013
trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible
and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
8. The parties to the suit are bound to co-operate for the earlier
disposal of the suit itself. Unnecessary adjournments shall be rejected.
The trial Court cannot give adjournments on flimsy grounds or on
mechanical grounds. Even on genuine adjournments, the reasons must
be recorded by the trial Court.
06.01.2021
uma
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2853 of 2013
To
The Principal District Judge
Krishnagiri
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2853 of 2013
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
uma
C.M.A.No.2853 of 2013
M.P.No.1 of 2013
06.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
