Madras High Court
Mrs. S. Vidhyadhari vs M/S. Kalpana Foundations Pvt. Ltd on 4 August, 2022
O.S.A.No.217 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.08.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN,
O.S.A.No.217 of 2022
and CMP No. 12722 of 2022
Mrs. S. Vidhyadhari .. Appellant
v.
M/s. Kalpana Foundations Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. By its Managing Director,
Mr. K. Ramesh Kumar,
No.54/A,New No.152,
Periyar Pathai, Choolaimedu,
Chennai – 600 094. ... Respondent
Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Original
Side Rules under Clause 15 of Letter Patent to set aside the order dated
07.12.2021 in A.No.1733 of 2021 in C.S.No.27 of 2015.
Page 1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.No.217 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr. M.Kempraj
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by SUNDER MOHAN, J.)
Challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in
Application No.1733 of 2021 in C.S.No.27 of 2015 the 2nd defendant
has e filed the above Original Side Appeal.
2. The 1st respondent-plaintiff filed the suit in C.S.No.27 of 2015
for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,01,35,000/- [ Rupees three crores one lakh
and thirty five thousand only] together with interest. The defendants filed
their written statement and are contesting the suit. When the suit was
taken up for trial, the 2nd defendant took out an application in A.No.1733
of 2021 to strike out the pleading in the suit as against her, as she was
wrongly impleaded as 2nd defendant and for mis-joinder of parties in the
suit. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the 2nd defendant
has stated that she has given a detailed reply to the notice issued by the
1st respondent-plaintiff, wherein she denied any transaction between her
Page 2/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.No.217 of 2022
and the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the 2 nd defendant contended
that since she was not involved in the suit transaction, she is not a
necessary party, hence the suit should be strike off. The application filed
by the 2nd defendant was opposed by the 1st respondent-plaintiff on the
ground that the 2nd defendant is also a party to the transaction, hence she
is a proper and necessary party for proper adjudication of the suit.
3. The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the case of
both the parties, dismissed the application finding that there are specific
averments mentioned in the plaint against both the defendants, hence the
2nd defendant alone cannot be said to be not necessary party and suit can
not be dismissed for mis-joinder of parties.
4. On a perusal of the plaint averments it is clear that there are
averments made by the 1st respondent-plaintiff as against both the
defendants. Hence, the defence taken by the appellant-2nd defendant to
the effect she as not involved in the transaction can be decided only after
the completion of trial. That apart, when the suit was filed as early as in
the year 2015, the present application has been filed by the 2 nd defendant
Page 3/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.No.217 of 2022
after a lapse of 6 years. In these circumstances, we do not find any
merits in the appeal. Accordingly, the Original Side Appeal is dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[M.D., J.] [S.M., J.]
04.08.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Rj
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J
Page 4/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.No.217 of 2022
Rj
O.S.A.No.217 of 2022
and CMP No. 12722 of 2022
04.08.2022
Page 5/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
