Madras High Court
N.G.Srinivasan vs G.Nithyanandam on 6 July, 2023
C.R.P.(NPD).No.782 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.
LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(NPD).No.782 of 2016
N.G.Srinivasan ... Petitioner
Vs
1.G.Nithyanandam
2.P.S.K.Finance 7 chit Funds Ltd.,
Represented by its managing Director,
Having office bazaar street,
Salem - 1
3.The Sub Registrar,
Valapady Office,
Valappady Post & Taluk,
Salem District. ... Respondents
PRAYER:-Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the
Code of Civil Procedure to under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India to set aside the order in I.A.No.39 of 2013 in A.S.No.34 of
2013, dated 04.01.2014 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD).No.782 of 2016
Court, Salem.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Jagadeesan
For Respondents : Mr.T.Murugamanickam
Senior counsel
for Ms.Zeenath Begum
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petitioner is the 2nd defendant in the suit.
The suit had been filed for a declaration and mandatory injunction
by the 1st respondent.
2.The said suit was dismissed on the ground that the suit is
unusually delayed. The learned trial Judge referred to Order 21
Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Whether the trial Court
was right in holding a suit for title can be dismissed on grounds of
delay referring to Order XX1 Rule 58 is a matter to be gone into
by the trial Court. I have my own reservations on the same.
3.Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.119 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD).No.782 of 2016
2010, the plaintiff preferred A.S.No.34 of 2013 before the Ist
Additional Subordinate Court of Salem. An application was
moved for, impleading the judgment debtors, from whom the 2 nd
defendant had purchased the property. The said application was
allowed and challenging the same, the present Revision has been
filed.
4.Mr.P.Jagadeesan, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would submit that the impleading application has been
filed after prolonged delay and despite the fact that the plea was
taken in the written statement, no steps were taken to implead the
judgment debtors in O.S.No.2639 of 1978.
5.Mr.T.Murugamanickam, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for Zeenath Begum would state that under Order I Rule
10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure, parties can be impleaded at any
stage of the proceedings. The appeal being the continuation of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD).No.782 of 2016
suit, the lower Appellate Court did not commit any error in
impleading the parties.
6.The defendants in O.S.No.2639 of 1978 are the proposed
parties Rajammal and S.C.Kanchamalai. They became the
judgment debtors. In the execution proceedings, their property
was brought for auction and was purchased by the Civil Revision
petitioner/ 2nd defendant Mr.N.G.Srinivasan. The plaintiff
Nithiyanandam claims an independent right over the suit
scheduled mentioned property.
7.Under Order XXI Rule 92(4) of Code of Civil Procedure,
in a suit challenging the title of the judgment debtors, the
judgment debtors and the decree holder are proper and necessary
parties. Mr.Jagadeesan is absolutely right that the judgment
debtors have not been impleaded in the suit. However that has
been now rectified by way of an application in the appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD).No.782 of 2016
8.As rightly contended by Mr.T.Murugamanickam, the
power under Order I Rule 10(2) can be exercised at any stage
including the second appellate stage. The Court of first appeal is
the last Court on facts and law. Therefore, technical pleas must
not stand in the way in order to do complete justice between the
parties.
9.Once the Code of Civil Procedure Code holds that in a
suit challenging the title of the judgment debtors they are proper
and necessary parties, even if the property has been auctioned and
purchased by a third party, the impleadment of the judgment
debtor under Order I Rule 10 is but automatic. The learned Judge
has rightly appreciated the position of law and allowed I.A.No. 39
of 2013 to implead the proper and necessary parties. I do not find
any error or perversity in the order and accordingly, the above
captioned Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD).No.782 of 2016
10.The suit is of the year, 2010 and the first appeal is of the
year 2013. The learned I-Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem is
requested to take up the first appeal in A.S.No.34 of 2013 on
priority basis and have the same disposed of within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
06.07.2023
gba
Index: Yes/ No
Speaking order: Yes/ No
Neutral Citations: Yes/ No
To
The District Munsif Court,
Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD).No.782 of 2016
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
Gba
C.R.P.(NPD).No.782 of 2016
06.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
