Madras High Court
Rajeshwari vs M.Karunanithi on 6 January, 2025
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 1055 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 18.12.2024
Pronounced on 06.01.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
C.R.P.(MD) No. 1055 of 2023 and
CMP(MD).No.4967 of 2023
1.Rajeshwari
2.Palaniyammal
3.Saroja ... Petitioners / Appellants
Vs.
1.M.Karunanithi
2.Sundari
3.D.Subramanian
4.Mani
5.Shanthi
6.C.Nagaraju
7.S.Muthukumar
8.Nisha
9.M.Pushparaj
10.M.Paalraj
11.Krishnaveni
12.S.Balasubramani
13.S.Kandasami .. Respondents / proposed respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India against the order, dated 24.01.2023 made in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in
A.S.No.9 of 2021 on the file of the III Additional District Judge,
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 7
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 1055 of 2023
Tiruchirappalli.
For Petitioners : Ms. K. Vidya
For Respondent Nos.
1,2,6,12 and 13 : Mr.T. Leninkumar
*****
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the fair and
decreetal order order, dated 24.01.2023 made in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in
A.S.No.9 of 2021 on the file of the III Additional District Judge,
Tiruchirappalli.
2. The revision petitioners are appellants in A.S.No.9 of 2021 and
the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.420 of 2018 on the file of Principal Sub
Court, Trichy. The revision petitioners filed the above application in
I.A.No.1 of 2022 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and Section 151 CPC
seeking to implead the proposed respondents in the appeal and additional
defendants in the suit. In the application filed by the revision petitioners
it is contended that the revision petitioners have filed the suit in
O.S.No.No.420 of 2018 on the file of the Sub Court, Lalgudi claiming
3/13 share and the same was dismissed on 25.01.2019, on the ground for
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 1055 of 2023
non-joinder of necessary parties. Since the plaintiffs were not aware of the
legal heirs of the deceased Selvam and Ilayarani, they were not impleaded
in the suit. Pending suit, one Bala Subramani and one Kandasami
purchased the suit properties in the year 2020. Hence, the above
subsequent purchaser are also necessary parties in the appeal as well as in
the suit. Since it is a partition suit all the above persons are necessary
parties in the suit to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
3. The said application was resisted on the side of the respondents /
defendants stating that the petitioners have already filed impleading
petitions to implead the proposed parties before the Principal Sub Court,
Thiruchirappalli where the suit was originally filed and thereafter, the suit
and the petitions were transferred to the Sub Court, Lalgudi and the said
Interlocutory applications were re-numbered and the said petitions were
dismissed for default for non payment of batta. Knowing of the above
facts and suppressing the truth, the petitioners have come forward with
the above vexatious petition and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the
above application.
4. The first appellate Court dismissed the said application in
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 1055 of 2023
I.A.No.1 of 2022 stating that no appeal or revision was preferred against
the dismissal of the earlier applications, the present application is not
maintainable. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would
submit that at the time of transferring the suit from Principal Sub Court,
Thiruchirappalli to Sub Court, Lalgudi no notice was issued to the
petitioners. Only after verification of the case records, the counsel for the
petitioners informed about the dismissal of the suit for non-joinder of
necessary parties. It is further submitted that the petitioners were not
aware of the legal heirs of the deceased. Hence, the revision petitioners
were constrained to file the impleading petition before the First Appellate
Court for impleading the proposed respondents, namely the legal heirs of
the deceased and the subsequent purchasers to have a fair adjudication
and avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents would submit that earlier applications filed by the revision
petitioners for impleading the proposed parties were dismissed by the trial
Court. Against which no appeal or revision was preferred. Therefore, the
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 1055 of 2023
second application was rightly dismissed by the first Appellate court,
which calls for no interference by this Court.
7. Heard on both sides and perused the records.
8. It is not in dispute that earlier applications to implead the
proposed respondents were dismissed for non payment of batta. It is also
not in dispute that the suit was dismissed by the trial Court for non joinder
of necessary parties. Admittedly, the present application for impleading
the proposed respondents was filed only before the First Appellate Court.
It is settled legal position that necessary parties could be added at any
stage of the proceedings. This Court in the Judgment reported in 2009(3)
CTC 760 in the case of Balamani and another vs. Balasundaram held
that the partition suit should not be dismissed simply because of non
joinder of necessary parties and opportunity should given to the parties
concerned to implead the necessary parties. Having regard to the above
Judgment and also having regard to the fact that the legal heirs and
subsequent purchasers are necessary parties to the proceedings
opportunity should be given to the revision petitioners to implead such
parties in the suit. Therefore, the order of the First Appellate Court
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 1055 of 2023
dismissing the impleading petition is liable to be set aside and
accordingly, set aside.
9. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside
the order, dated 24.01.2023 made in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in A.S.No.9 of
2021 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli. No
costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
06.01.2025
Index: Yes/ No
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
trp
Copy To:
The III Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 1055 of 2023
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
trp
Pre-Delivery Order made
in
C.R.P.(MD) No. 1055 of 2023 and
06.01.2025
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
