Madras High Court
Annamalai vs Santhi on 23 June, 2021
CRP.PD.No.3338 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.R.P.PD.No.3338 of 2018
and
C.M.P.No.18923 of 2018
1. Annamalai
2. Ayothi ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.Santhi
2. Sekar ... Respondents
PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal orders dated
04.10.2017 passed in I.A.No.366 of 2017 in O.S.No.240 of 2009 on the file
of the Principal District Munsif Court, Chengam.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.Mani
For Respondents : No Appearance
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decretal
order passed in I.A.No.366 of 2017 in O.S.No.240 of 2003 dated
04.10.2017 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Chengam,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.3338 of 2018
thereby dismissing the petition to implead the second petitioner as the
second plaintiff in the suit.
2. The first petitioner filed the suit for declaration and permanent
injunction in respect of the suit property. The said suit was duly contested
by the respondents and the same was decreed in favour of the petitioner by
the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2013. Aggrieved by the same, the
respondents filed an Appeal Suit in A.S.No.34 of 2013 on the file of the
learned Additional Sub Judge, Tiruvannamalai and the same was allowed
and the suit was remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.
After obtaining the decree, the first petitioner herein sold out the suit
property in favour of the second petitioner herein. After remanding the suit,
to the trial Court the respondents filed an additional written statement
specifically stating that the suit is not maintainable for the reason that the
first petitioner had executed a sale deed in respect of the suit property in
favour of the second petitioner herein by the registered sale deed dated
27.05.2013 for the sale consideration of Rs.1,18,012/-. The purchaser of the
property under the above sale deed is a necessary party and the first
petitioner has no locus-standi to continue with the present plaint. Therefore,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.3338 of 2018
the first petitioner herein filed a petition to implead the second petitioner as
second plaintiff in the suit. The same was dismissed for the reason that no
reason was assigned by the first petitioner to implead the second petitioner
as the second plaintiff. Further, the petition was filed after a period of three
years from the date of remanding the matter for fresh trial.
3. Admittedly, the second petitioner herein purchased the suit
property from the first petitioner. Therefore, to maintain the suit, the second
petitioner is necessary and proper party to the suit as contended by the
second respondent in the additional written statement.
4. In view of the above discussion, this Civil Revision Petition is
allowed and the order passed in I.A.No.366 of 2017 in O.S.No.240 of 2009
dated 04.10.2017 is hereby set aside. However, the Court below is directed
to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.240 of 2009. Consequently, the connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
23.06.2021
kv
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.3338 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
Kv
To
1. The Principal District Munsif, Chengam.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.
C.R.P.PD.No.3338 of 2018
23.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
