Madras High Court
Venkatesan vs The Block Development Officer on 15 November, 2022
CRP(MD)No.2241 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 15.11.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
CRP(MD)No.2241 of 2022
and
CMP(MD)No.10491 of 2022
1.Venkatesan
2.Vasantha : Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Union Office Building Complex,
Main Road, Thirupananthal,
Thiruvidaimaruthur Taluk,
Thanjavur District.
2.The Thasildar,
Thiruvidaimaruthur,
Thiruvidaimaruthur Taluk,
Thanjavur District.
3.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Thanjavur District.
4.Jawagarlal Nehru
5.Pusba : Respondents
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.2241 of 2022
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227
of the Constitution of India to call for the records
relating to the fair and decreetal order dated
27.07.2022, made in I.A.No.8 of 2022 in A.S.No.10 of
2018, on the file of the Additional Sub Court,
Kumbakonam and set aside the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Rajaraman
For Respondents : Mr.Sarangan,
Additional Government Pleader
for R.1 to R.3
*****
ORDER
The petitioners are husband and wife. They filed
the present revision petition as against the order
passed in I.A.No.8 of 2022 in A.S.No.10 of 2018, dated
27.07.2022, on the file of the Additional Sub Court,
Kumbakonam.
2.The first petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.
325 of 2013 before the Principal District Munsif,
Kumbakonam, seeking an injunction not to alter the tax
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.2241 of 2022
receipts standing in his name. The suit was dismissed
on 17.11.2017. Challenging the same, the first
petitioner has preferred an appeal before the
Additional Sub Court, Kumbakonam, in A.S.No.10 of 2018.
Pending the appeal, the petitioners have filed an
interlocutory application in I.A.No.8 of 2022 that
pending the suit proceedings, the first petitioner has
transferred the suit schedule property in the name of
the second petitioner by a settlement deed and
therefore, the second petitioner is liable to be
impleaded as second appellant in the appeal proceedings
as per Order 22 Rule 10 CPC and Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
The learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam,
by the order impugned, dismissed this application.
Aggrieved over the same, the petitioners have moved the
instant revision.
3.Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the suit schedule property originally stood in the
name of the first petitioner and is now transferred in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.2241 of 2022
the name of the second petitioner pending the suit
proceedings. The second petitioner is now the owner of
the property and she alone is entitled for the relief
sought for and therefore, she must be added as one of
the party.
4.The learned Counsel has also relied upon the
decision of this Court in R.Mani v. P.Kalaiselvi and
Another [2020 (1) MWN (Civil) 296], wherein, this Court
has held as follows:-
“8.On the contrary, in the judgments relied
upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner,
the Apex Court as well as this Court held that a
subsequent purchaser is a proper and necessary
party and therefore, he should be impleaded in
the suit for proper adjudication.
9.The trial Court, without appreciating the
above facts, erroneously dismissed the
application finding that the application filed
by the plaintiff to implead the proposed party
is barred by limitation. But on a perusal of the
order, it is clear that in Paragraph – 9, the
trial Court itself has observed that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.2241 of 2022
proposed party may be a necessary party. Having
given such a finding, the trial Court should
have allowed the application. Admittedly, the
petitioner has not claimed any relief as against
the proposed party. In such a case, the question
of limitation does not arise for consideration.
The order passed by the trial Court is erroneous
and is liable to be set aside. ...”
5.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioners and the learned Additional Government
Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.
6.The second petitioner is the wife of the first
petitioner and she claims to have purchased the suit
property pending the suit, from the first petitioner
via a settlement deed. However, she has not taken any
steps to implead herself when the suit was pending. The
suit was dismissed in the year 2017 and the appeal is
pending from the year 2018. The appeal is posted for
arguments and at this stage, the petitioners have come
up with this plea.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.2241 of 2022
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
gk
7.This conduct of the petitioners in filing the
application at this stage appears to be for dragging on
the proceedings and the lower appellate Court has
rightly rejected this application.
8.This Court does not find any error in the order
impugned warranting interference. Accordingly, this
civil revision petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands
closed.
Index : Yes / No 15.11.2022
Internet : Yes
gk
To
The Additional Subordinate Judge,
Kumbakonam.
CRP(MD)No.2241 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
