[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

C.Krishnaa (Died) vs S.Santhi on 30 April, 2026

                                                                             CRP No. 1625 of 2022


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                        RESERVED ON      :      08.04.2026


                                        PRONOUNCED ON :         30.04.2026

                                                    CORAM
                                  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
                                              CRP No. 1625 of 2022
                                                      and
                                              C.M.P.No.8133 of 2022

                   C.Krishnaa (Died)
                1. M.Chellappan
                2. Mrs.C.Prema

                                                                               ..Petitioner(s)
                                                       Vs
                1. Mrs.S.Santhi

                2. Mrs.S.Sheela

                3. Mr.K. Palani
                   All are represented by their Power Agent,
                   Mr. M. Sudhakaran S/o. Muthuramalingam,
                   Hindu aged about 42 years and residing at
                   No.2A, Periyar Nagar, 2nd Street,
                   Adambakkam, Chennai - 600 088.

                4. Mr.M.Velu,

                5. Mr.L. Sivarajan

                6. C.Sunilkumar

                7. C.Gokulakrishnan

                                                                             ..Respondent(s)


                                                                                     __________
                                                                                      Page1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                 CRP No. 1625 of 2022


                Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
                India, praying to set aside the order and decreetal order made in IA.No.732 of
                2021 dated 23.10.2021 in O.S.No.206/2019 on the file of the Additional District
                Munsif Court at Alandur.


                              For Petitioner(s):      Mr.N.Jothi
                                                      Senior Counsel
                                                      For Mr.S.Vinod

                              For Respondent(s):      Mr. M. Thangadurai
                                                      (For RR2, 4 and 5)

                                                      For R1 - Died
                                                      For RR3, R6 and R7 – No appearance

                                                      ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order

and decreetal order made in IA.No.732 of 2021 dated 23.10.2021 in O.S.No.206

of 2019 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court at Alandur.

2. Heard Mr.N.Jothi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and

Mr.M.Thangadurai, learned counsel for respondents 2, 4 and 5.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners

would submit that the respondents 1 to 3 had earlier instituted a suit for

permanent injunction, restraining the petitioners and the 7th respondent from

interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit property, and that

pending the suit, they had sold the property to a third party from whom the __________ Page2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

respondents 4 and 5 claim to have purchased the suit property and had taken out

an application to implead themselves in exercise of powers under Order I Rule

10(2) read with Section 151 CPC.

4. The learned Senior Counsel would vehemently contend that the said

provision can only be invoked by a party to the suit and not by a third party, and

that a perusal of the application would show that even though the plaintiffs have

been shown as parties to the petition, the same had been only affirmed by a third

party, which would indicate that the said application had been couched in such a

manner to make it appear as if it had been maintained by a party to the suit.

5. The learned Senior Counsel would further rely upon a judgment of this

Court in the case of M.Selvaraj Vs. Jayadevi Krishnasamy and others, reported

in 2022 (5) MLJ 258, to contend that such an impleading application filed by a

third party cannot be entertained and that at the most, they could only be added

as defendants. He would further submit that the respondents 4 and 5, being

pendente lite purchasers, cannot be impleaded as party plaintiffs. He would

submit that the trial Court, without considering all these facts, in a casual

manner and merely considering that the written statement was yet to be filed,

had held that it was necessary to implead the proposed parties, only then all

necessary documents would be available before the Court for adjudication of

the issue. He would further submit that such an order, without assigning any __________ Page3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

reasons as to the rights of the parties, is liable to be interfered with by this

Court. Hence, he seeks this Court to set aside the order of impleadment made in

this revision petition.

6. Countering his arguments, Mr.M.Thangadurai, learned counsel

appearing for the respondents 2, 4 and 5 would submit that the 4 th and 5th

respondents have stepped into the shoes of the respondents 1 to 3, who are the

plaintiffs, as they had sold the property to a third party from whom the fourth

and fifth respondents have purchased the same. They have also mutated the

revenue records in their names and obtained licence for putting up an industry

in the said place. Hence, it became necessary for them to be impleaded as party

plaintiffs to the suit to protect their right and possession over the property.

7. He would submit that the petitioners are interlopers trying to interfere

with the possession of the property. In support of his contention that they have

purchased the property, he had also produced the documents of title and revenue

records standing in their names.

8. He would further submit that the principle of lis pendens does not

annul the conveyance but only renders it subject to the result of the pending

litigation. Hence, even though being pendente lite purchasers, if they are not

permitted to participate in the proceedings, the same would defeat their rights in __________ Page4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

the property. He would further submit that the petition had been filed both by

the plaintiffs and respondents 4 and 5 seeking to implead themselves as party

plaintiffs, and therefore, the learned Senior Counsel cannot be called upon to be

heard to contest that the application by a third party ought not to have been

entertained by the Court. Hence, he seeks dismissal of the revision petition.

9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel

appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

10. A suit had been instituted by respondents 1 to 3 against three

individuals, alleging that there was an attempt to interfere with their possession

and enjoyment of the suit property. It is now the claim of the respondents,

particularly respondents 4 and 5, that respondents 1 to 3, who are the plaintiffs

in the suit, had sold the property in favour of a third party from whom the

respondents 4 and 5 had purchased under registered documents and that the

revenue records have also been mutated in their names.

11. Even though it is the claim of the learned Senior Counsel that they are

pendente lite purchasers, they cannot be entitled to be impleaded as parties to

the suit, considering the fact that the suit is not one for declaration of title to the

suit property and does not involve a challenge to the title over the suit property,

this Court is of the view that the issue of pendente lite purchase need not be __________ Page5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

gone into in the present proceedings.

12. The suit is one for bare injunction to restrain the defendants from

interfering with the possession in the suit property.

13. An application had been taken out under Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C. As

pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, from a

plain reading of the said provision, such an application can only be filed by a

party to the proceedings. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the

application would indicate that the plaintiffs are shown as the petitioners 1 to 3

and two individuals, who are third parties to the suit as petitioners 4 and 5,

claiming themselves to be the purchasers of the property pendente lite and the

affidavit had been sworn to by the 4th respondent.

14. This Court is of the view that the proper procedure would have been

to show the fourth and fifth respondents as respondents in the petition and the

application ought to have been filed by a party to the suit seeking to implead the

fourth and fifth respondents as proposed plaintiffs in the suit. Therefore, the

application as filed by the respondents 1 to 5 cannot be said to be a proper

application.

__________ Page6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

15. That apart, if the respondents 1 to 3 had sold their property to a third

party, they no longer continue to have the cause of action for which the suit was

filed, as admittedly they do not continue in possession, as admitted by the 4 th

and 5th respondents that they are in possession.

16. Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC entitles a party to take out an application

to strike off a party, who had been improperly joined or to include a party who

ought to have been joined at the time of filing of the suit for effective

adjudication could only be made. In that context, it would be relevant to refer to

the provision under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, which is extracted hereunder:

“Order XXII Rule 10 C.P.C.,

10. Procedure in case of assignment before final order in

suit –

(1) In other cases of an assignment, creation or devolution of

any interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of

the Court, be continued by or against the person to or upon whom

such interest has come or devolved.

(2) The attachment of a decree pending an appeal therefrom

shall be deemed to be an interest entitling the person who procured

such attachment to the benefit of sub-rule(1).”

__________ Page7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

17. In the present case, the parties could only be entitled to take out an

application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC and not an application under Order

I Rule 10(2) CPC, as it is necessary for the subsequent purchaser to seek

permission of the Court to continue the proceedings that was initiated.

18. For the aforesaid reasons, this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed

and as a sequel, the order and decreetal order made in IA.No.732 of 2021 dated

23.10.2021 in O.S.No.206 of 2019 on the file of the Additional District Munsif

Court at Alandur stands set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected