Madras High Court
Saroja Samu vs P.V.Mohan on 3 September, 2024
C.R.P. No. 2904 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P. No. 2904 of 2024
and
C.M.P. No. 15471 of 2024
1. Saroja Samu
2. Lalitha Vijay Sankaran
Represented by her Power Agent
Shantha Sankaran
Villa No. 41,
'Santhosham Covai S3 Retirement Communities'
Perur, Kalampalayam Post,
Coimbatore - 641010.
3. P.N.Kalyani
4. Balagopal Sunil Srinivas
Represented by his Power Agent
S.Balagopal
Villa No. 5,
'Santhosham Covai S3 Retirement Communities'
Perur, Kalampalayam Post,
Coimbatore - 641010.
5. N.Kuppusamy
6. K.Kamala ...Petitioners / Petitioners / Third Parties
Vs.
1. P.V.Mohan
2. Uma Mohan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
C.R.P. No. 2904 of 2024
3. Visalakshi Balasubramanian
4. S.Balasubramanian
5. P.C.Seethalekshmy
6. H.Parameswaran
7. Mahalakshmi Sivaswamy
8. V.Sivaswamy
9. Rukmani Gopal ... Respondents 1 to 9 /
Respondents 1 to 9 / Plaintiffs
10. Covai Property Centre (India) Private Limited,
Represented by its Managing Director
A.Sridharan
No.13/4, 3rd Floor, Covai Care Tower
Gem Nirmaalayam, V.C.Rao Nagar,
Ganapathy,
Coimbatore - 641006.
11. Columbia Pacific Communities Private Limited
Rep by its Director
No.8, Rakavis Square
Rahuman Sait Colony
Sowripalayam Road
Coimbatore - 641014.
12. Janaki Balasubramanian
13. Sivaraman
14. Radhamani
15. S.K.Basker
16. V.K.Ramasubramaniam
17. Radhamani Sharma
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/9
C.R.P. No. 2904 of 2024
18. S.K.Narayani
19. Reavathy Basker
20. Sakanaryanan Vasantha
21. Vimala Sivaraman
22. Sukuntha
23. Girija Ramakrishnan
24. C.B.Sankaranarayanan
25. N.Balasubramaniam
26. Ranganathan
27. Jayalakshmi Vishwanathan
28. PVG Nair
29. N.K.Vishwanathan
30. Geetha Ravindran
31. Ravindran
32. K.S.Ramakrishnan ... Respondents 10 to 32 /
Respondents 10 to 32 /
Defendants 1 to 23.
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the docket order 14.03.2024 passed in I.A.
No. 9 of 2024 in A.S. No. 64 of 2022 on the file of the III Additional
Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/9
C.R.P. No. 2904 of 2024
For Petitioners : Mr. M.Santhanaraman
For R1, R2, R7 to R9 : Mr. T.N.Rajagopalan
For R10 : Mr. D.Palani
For R3 to R6 & R11 to R32 : NRN
ORDER
This Civil revision petition arises against the order passed by the
learned III Additional Subordinate Judge at Coimbatore in I.A. No. 9 of 2024
in A.S. No. 64 of 2022.
2. A.S. No. 64 of 2022 arises out of the judgment and decree passed in
O.S. No. 2569 of 2014. O.S. No. 2569 of 2014 was filed for several reliefs.
The plaintiffs therein pleaded that they are represent the interests of all the
owners and residents of three senior citizen projects under the name and style
of Soundaryam, Santhosham and Santhosham Extension. After hot contest, the
suit came to be decreed by way of a judgment and decree dated 28.09.2022.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the first defendant has preferred A.S. No. 64
of 2022. Pleading that the original plaintiffs are not interested to prosecute the
appeal, the civil revision petitioners preferred I.A. No. 9 of 2024 seeking for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
transpose themselves in place of the original plaintiffs. The said application
came to be dismissed by the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge. Hence,
this revision.
4. By an order dated 06.08.2024, I had issued notice to the parties and
had granted stay of further proceedings in the appeal. On service of notice,
Mr. T.N.Rajagopalan has entered appearance for the original
plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 4 and 7 to 9 in the appeal. Notices was also been
served on the appellant/10th respondent herein and he has also engaged a
counsel.
5. The plea of Mr. M.Santhanaraman is that the civil revision petitioners
are residents of S3 Retirement Communities and they have an interest in
prosecuting the appeal. He would state the original plaintiffs, who had
presented the suit under Order I Rule 8 are diffident to proceed with the appeal
and therefore, the civil revision petitioners came up with the present petition.
6. Mr. T.N.Rajagopalan would submit that the original plaintiffs
continue to prosecute the appeal and it is their intention to get the judgment
and decree of the Trial Court confirmed. He would draw my attention to an
order passed by my brother, Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.Anand Venkatesh in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No. 1451 of 2024 dated 27.06.2024. He point out the original
plaintiffs challenged the order passed by the learned III Additional
Subordinate Judge at Coimbatore in I.A. No. 2 of 2023 in A.S. No. 64 of 2022
dated 16.10.2023. He would assert that it is not the intention of the original
plaintiffs who have obtained a decree to abandon the appeal. On the contrary,
he would refer to the order that has been passed by the Trial Court to assert
that they are diligently prosecuting the appeal in order to uphold the interests
of members of the S3 community, which includes the civil revision
petitioners.
7. I have carefully considered the arguments of both sides.
8. The ground on which Mr. M.Santhanaraman wants to get his parties
impleaded as an appeal is based on the fact that the original plaintiffs are not
interested in prosecuting the appeal which has been preferred out of suit
presented to defend the common interest of the residents. That situation stands
belied by virtue of the recent appeal that has been disposed in C.M.A. No.
1451 of 2024 dated 27.06.2024.
9. Be that as it may, the fact that the petitioners are also residents of S3
retirement community is not in dispute. The intention of the civil revision
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioners as well as the original plaintiffs seem to coalesce. Both of them
want benefits to be given to them by virtue of being occupants of senior
citizen homes. Therefore, instead of invoking the provision under Order I Rule
8(5) and directing the substitution of the original plaintiffs/respondents by the
civil revision petitioners, I would invoke Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of
Civil Procedure and implead the civil revision petitioners as parties to the
appeal. If such a course of action is adopted, the fear of Mr. M.Santhanaraman
that the original plaintiffs are not prosecuting the appeal in the interest of all
the residents will become arrayed. On the contrary, the civil revision
petitioners can independently agitate the points that have been left out by the
original plaintiffs, if any, and buttress the arguments of the original
plaintiffs/respondents. Accordingly, the civil revision petition stands allowed
while confirming the order of the learned Judge dated 14.03.2024 with respect
to the order passed under Order I Rule 8(5) of the Code, the present civil
revision petitioners are impleaded as respondents in the appeal. The present
civil revision petitioners will be arrayed as respondents 32 to 37 in the appeal.
The Court need not wait for an amended appeal grounds to be filed by the
appellant. It is open for it to receive the amended grounds either from the civil
revision petitioners or from the original plaintiffs who are arrayed as
defendants 2 to 31 and proceed with the appeal. The learned Judge is
requested to adhere to the time lines that have been specified by the Court in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No. 1451 of 2024.
10. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed as indicated
above. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
03.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
pal
To
The III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.,
pal
03.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
