Madras High Court
Swati @ Nagina vs P.Sanjay Kumar Bagmar on 4 January, 2022
C.R.P.(PD)No.1341 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.R.P.(PD)No.1341 of 2016
and C.M.P.No.7541 of 2016
Swati @ Nagina .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.P.Sanjay Kumar Bagmar
2.Rajesh Kumar Bagmar ..
Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constiution
of India, against the order dated 08.02.2016 made in I.A.No.6301 of
2015 in O.S.No.5449 of 2013 on the file of the VI Assitant City Civil
Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Habeeb Rahman
for Mr.A.Edwinprabakar
For respondents : Mr.G.Saravanan for R1
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)No.1341 of 2016
ORDER
(This matter is heard through “video conferencing”)
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment and decree
dated 08.02.2016 made in I.A.No.6301 of 2015 in O.S.No.5449 of 2013
on the file of the VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
2.The petitioner is the defendant and 1st respondent is the plaintiff
in O.S.No.5449 of 2013 on the file of the VI Assistant City Civil Court,
Chennai. The 1st respondent has filed the said suit for permanent
injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with his peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit property, except due process of law.
The petitioner filed written statement in July 2014 and is contesting the
suit. The trial commenced. The 1st respondent let in evidence and closed
his side and when the suit was posted for evidence of the petitioner, she
filed the present I.A.No.6301 of 2015 under Order I Rule 10(3) of CPC,
to implead the 2nd respondent herein as 2nd defendant in the suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)No.1341 of 2016
3.According to the petitioner, there is a dispute between the
petitioner and the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent is residing along
with the 1st respondent and has given his address for correspondence in
all the cases. The respondents 1 and 2 are brothers and colluded with
each other and hence, the 2nd respondent is necessary party in the present
suit.
4.The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit and submitted that the
2nd respondent is not residing with him and the 2 nd respondent is residing
at Choolai. The petitioner, in one way or other to harass the 1st respondent
and his family members has filed the present application. The petitioner
has also tried to attach the property of the 1 st respondent stating that
house hold articles of the 2nd respondent is lying in 1st respondent's house.
The 2nd respondent is not necessary party in the suit filed by the 1 st
respondent against the petitioner for permanent injunction restraining her
from interfering with his peaceful possession. The suit has been posted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)No.1341 of 2016
for evidence of the petitioner. The petitioner, without letting in evidence,
took number of adjournments and has filed the present application, which
is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the said application.
5.The learned Judge considering the averments made in the
affidavit, counter affidavit, the documents filed by the petitioner and the
relief sought for by the 1st respondent in the suit, dismissed the
application holding that there is no cause of action against the 2nd
respondent.
6.Against the said order of dismissal dated 08.02.2016 made in
I.A.No.6301 of 2015 in O.S.No.5449 of 2013, the petitioner has come
out with the present Civil Revision Petition.
7.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as
the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and perused the
entire materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)No.1341 of 2016
8.From the materials on record, it is seen that the 1st respondent
filed the suit against the petitioner for permanent injunction restraining
the petitioner from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the
suit property, except due process of law. According to the 1st respondent,
the petitioner was married to the 2 nd respondent and due to dispute
between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, they are living separately.
The 1st respondent, his family, aged parents and the 2nd respondent were
residing at Sowcarpet. Subsequently, the 1st respondent shifted his
residence to the present address on rent and is staying with his family and
aged parents. The 2nd respondent is residing at Choolai. The petitioner is
one way or other harassing the 1st respondent, his family members and
aged parents. On these averments, the 1st respondent filed the suit for
permanent injunction against the petitioner. The petitioner is contesting
the suit and the 1st respondent has let in evidence and closed his side.
9.From the order of the learned Judge, it is seen that when the suit
was posted for evidence of the petitioner, without letting in any evidence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)No.1341 of 2016
and after taking number of adjournments, the petitioner filed the present
application. The reason given by the petitioner for impleading the 2nd
respondent is that dispute is only between the petitioner and the 2nd
respondent, the 2nd respondent is residing along with the 1st respondent
and the respondents colluded together suppressing the fact that the 2 nd
respondent is residing with him, has filed the suit. From the nature of
relief sought for by the 1st respondent in the suit, it is seen that the 1 st
respondent is seeking for permanent injunction only against the
petitioner. No allegation is made against the 2nd respondent and there is
no cause of action against the 2nd respondent. In view of the above, it is
clear that the 2nd respondent is not a necessary or proper party to the
present suit. The learned Judge has considered all the materials in proper
perspective and rightly dismissed the application. There is no error or
irregularity in the said order of the learned Judge warranting interference
by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)No.1341 of 2016
9.For the above reasons, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
04.01.2022
vkr
To
The VI Assistant City Civil Judge,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)No.1341 of 2016
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
vkr
C.R.P.(PD)No.1341 of 2016
and C.M.P.No.7541 of 2016
04.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
