Madras High Court
K.Anandakumar vs B.Ponnumani on 12 July, 2023
C.R.P.(MD)No.1608 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 12.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
C.R.P.(MD)No.1608 of 2017
and
CMP(MD)No.9094 of 2017
K.Anandakumar ... Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff
Vs.
1.B.Ponnumani
2.B.Vallimalai
3.B.Lakshmanan ... Respondents 1 to 3 / Respondent 1to 3 / Defendants
4.Dhanabakiyam
5.B.Lakshmanan
6.M.Raja
7.C.Arumugam ... Respondents 4to7 / Respondents4to7 /
Proposed Defendants 4 to 7
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order, dated 18.04.2017, passed in
I.A.No.211 of 2015 in O.S.No.167 of 2013, on the file of the Principal
District Munsif Court, Dindigul.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick
For Respondents : Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar for R1 & R3
: No appearance for R2, 4, 6 & 7
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.1608 of 2017
ORDER
The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed, against the
order, dated 18.04.2017, passed in I.A.No.211 of 2015 in O.S.No.167 of
2013, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul. The
revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff, the respondents 1 to 3 herein are
the defendants and the respondents 4 to 7 herein are the proposed
defendants 4 to 7 before the trial Court.
2. Short facts which give rise to the instant Revision Petition,
are that:
The petitioner filed the suit in respect of the suit property situated
in S.No.93/7, Thavasimedai Village, for the relief of permanent injunction
and for other reliefs. In which, the defendants filed a written statement
along with counter claim. In para 9 of the written statement, they pleaded
that an extent of 93 ½ cents of the suit property has been sold to one
Dhanabackiyam on 16.12.2012. Therefore, the subsequent purchasers are
necessary parties to the proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.1608 of 2017
3. However, the respondent filed a counter statement stating that
the proposed parties cannot be termed as subsequent purchasers as the suit
is instituted subsequent to the suit in the year 2013, and also pleaded that
no cause of action arose against the proposed parties and therefore, he
prayed to dismiss the application.
4. The trial Court after considering the submissions made on
either side, dismissed the application on the ground that there is no cause of
action against them and the proposed parties cannot be termed as
subsequent purchasers.
5. Aggrieved with the order of the learned trial Judge, the
revision petitioner / plaintiff has come up with the instant revision.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would
vehemently submit that the very order of the trial Judge is liable to be
interfered with on the simple reason that the very impleading application
has been filed, based upon the averment in the written statement.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.1608 of 2017
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the
judgment of this Court reported in 2014-4-CTC-814 (V.L.Dhandapani V.
Revathy Ramachandran). Wherein, this Court held that the purchasers
pendente lite are proper and necessary parties to the suit.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 3 would invite
the attention of this Court about the written statement. According to written
statement, the 93 ½ cents of the suit properties were sold to one
Dhanabackiyam on 16.12.2012. Therefore, the said Dhanabackiyam cannot
be termed as pendente lite purchaser, when the suit has been filed in the
year 2013 and when the property has been sold prior to suit to
Dhanabackiyam, in the suit for permanent injunction, no cause of action
has been pleaded against the said Dhanabackiyam. Therefore, contended
that the dismissal order passed by the trial Judge is a well reasoned order.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 3 would submit
that while the pendency of the suit, the revision petitioner herein has also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.1608 of 2017
filed another application in I.A.No.685 of 2018, for impleading some other
person, and against the dismissal of the application, when the plaintiff
approached this Court, this Court dismissed the application with cost, in
C.R.P.(MD)No.2861 of 2018 (K.Anandakumar V. B.Ponnumani), dated
20.03.2019 by heavily condemning the conduct of the petitioner.
10. I have given my anxious consideration to the either side
submissions.
11.The point to be considered, is whether the proposed parties are
necessary and proper party.
12. According to the pleadings of the respondents the suit
property has been sold to one Dhanabackiyam. However, on perusal of the
written statement, the sale was effected on 16.02.2012, which is prior to the
title deed of the petitioner, namely, the settlement deed, on 12.04.2012.
Therefore, when the sale had been effected prior to the suit, in favour of
the proposed parties, unless there is some cause of action against the so
called subsequent purchasers / proposed parties, their presence is not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.1608 of 2017
necessary in a suit for bare injunction. Here, it is admitted case that there is
no cause of action pleaded in the plaint as against the so called subsequent
purchaser/ proposed party. Therefore, as rightly submitted by the learned
counsel for the respondent, the proposed parties cannot be terms as a
pendente lite purchasers. Further, as rightly submitted by the learned
counsel for the respondent, when there is no cause of action against the
proposed parties, they can't be termed as necessary and property parties.
13. Therefore, the findings of the learned trial Judge in
dismissing the application is well considered one and I do not want to
interfere with the same. Hence, the instant Civil Revision Petition stands
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
NCC : Yes/No 12.07.2023
Index :Yes/No
Ls
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.1608 of 2017
To
1.The Principal District Munsif Court,
Dindigul.
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.1608 of 2017
C.KUMARAPPAN.,J.
Ls
C.R.P(MD)No.1608 of 2017
12.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
