Madras High Court
Chandrasekaran vs Balakrishnan (Died) on 14 March, 2025
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.819 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 14.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.819 of 2025
Chandrasekaran
S/o. Krishnasamy Gounder,
Door No.92,
Therveedhi, Karur Town,
Karur District,
Represented by the Power of Attorney
Mrs.Santhi.
.... Petitioner/Petitioner/
Proposed Defendant No.5
(Cause title is accepted vide order of
this Court dated 17.02.2025 made in
C.M.P(MD) No.2340 of 2025 in
C.R.P(MD) SR.No.90436 of 2024.
Santhi is recognized as
Power Agent of Chandrasekaran
(Petitioner vide Court order dated
11.03.2025 made in C.M.P(MD) No.
4023 of 2025 in C.R.P(MD) SR.No.
90436 of 2024)
Vs.
Balakrishnan (Died)
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:48 pm )
C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.819 of 2025
Arumugam (Died)
Vasantha (Died)
1. Velvizhi
2. Nagakarthikeyan
S/o. Late Arumugam
Mudhaliyarpuram 1st Street,
Kodaikanal.
(Declared as a Major vide order passed
in I.A.No.06 of 2024, dated
31.01.2024.
3. Saminathan
S/o. Late Arumugam
Mudhaliyarpuram 1st Street,
Kodaikanal.
(Declared as a Major vide order passed
in I.A.No.06 of 2024, dated
31.01.2024.
.... Respondents 1 to 3/
Respondents 1 to 6/
Plaintiffs
S.Sankar @ Vellaiyan (Died)
4. Arukaniyammal
5. R.Veluchamy
6. K.Mani
7. Dhanalakshmi
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:48 pm )
C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.819 of 2025
8. Kaveri
9. Tamilselvan
10. Rajkumar
(Impleaded as the legal heirs of
deceased 1st respondent viz.,
Balakrishnan herein vide I.A.No.05 of
2021 order dated 31.01.2024 and
subsequently plaint amended as per
the order passed in I.A.No.11 of 2024,
dated 06.02.2024).
... Respondents 4 to 10/
Respondents 7 to 10/
Defendants 7 to 10
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, to set aside the impugned fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.
1069 of 2005 in O.S.No.1280 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Palani, dated 24.02.2006.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan
ORDER
A third party to O.S.No.1280 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif
Court, Palani, has filed the present Civil Revision Petition challenging the
dismissal of his impleading application in the suit, which was filed in I.A.No.
1069 of 2005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:48 pm )
C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.819 of 2025
2. A perusal of the records reveal that the respondents 1 to 3 herein had
filed the above said suit for the relief of declaration of title and permanent
injunction. While the suit was pending, the petitioner herein has filed I.A.No.
1069 of 2005 to get himself impleaded in the suit. This application has been
dismissed on 24.02.2006. However, the dismissal of the said application was
not challenged immediately.
3. The suit in O.S.No.1280 of 2004 was dismissed by the Court on
26.06.2006. Challenging the same, the plaintiffs have filed A.S.No.45 of
2006, which was allowed on 01.12.2008. Challenging the judgment and
decree of the first appellate Court, the vendor of the plaintiff had filed second
appeal in S.A.No.476 of 2009 before this Court. This Court, by an order dated
30.06.2020 had allowed the second appeal and remitted the matter back to the
trial Court. When the matter is pending before the trial Court, after remand
for a period of five years, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by
the proposed party, challenging the order dated 24.02.2006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:48 pm )
C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.819 of 2025
4. The facts captured above will clearly indicate that once the suit has
been disposed of by the trial Court, the question of challenging the order
passed in an interlocutory application would not arise. That apart, in the
present revision petition, the order dated 24.02.2006 is being challenged after
a period of 19 years. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to
entertain the present Revision Petition. In case, if the revision petitioner
claims any right of title to the property, it is for him workout his remedy in the
manner known to law.
5. With the above said observation, this Civil Revision Petition stands
disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
14.03.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ebsi
To
1. The District Munsif Court, Palani.
2. The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:48 pm )
C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.819 of 2025
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
ebsi
14.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:48 pm )
