[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
N.Sreenivasa Reddy vs Raja Reddy on 20 February, 2026
CRP No. 169 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20-02-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No. 169 of 2026
N.Sreenivasa Reddy
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Raja Reddy
M. Thimma Reddy (Died)
2.Chenna Reddy
3.Jayarama Reddy
Thimmakka (died)
4.Chennamma
5.Pillamma
6.Gowramma
7.Savithriamma
8.Srinivasa Reddy
9.Narayanamma
10.Rashmi
11.Shilpa
12.C. Srinivasalu
13.S. Manjula
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 04:45:19 pm )
CRP No. 169 of 2026
Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, to strike off the IA.No.8 of 2025 in AS.No.7 of 2015 on the file of the
Additional Subordinate Court, Hosur.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Vijayaraghavan
For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Subramanian
for Mr.A.Venkatesh Kumar for
R1
R2, R3, R7 to R9-Notice sent
service awaited
R4, R6, R11, R12 and R13-
Served, No appearance
R5-Insufficient Address
R10-Returned
ORDER
Heard Mr.K.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel representing Mr.A.Venkatesh Kumar,
learned counsel for the first respondent.
2. The revision petition has been filed to strike of I.A.8 of 2025, which
has been filed by the first respondent, seeking to implead 74 proposed
parties/respondents to the appeal. The first respondent is the appellant in the
first appeal. In fact, the case appears to have a chequered history. The trial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 04:45:19 pm )
Court decreed the suit on 23.12.2014 as against which the first respondent has
preferred A.S.No.7 of 2015. In the appeal, an interim application has been
taken out by the first respondent/appellant, which was dismissed for non-
prosecution. The application to restore the said application was also
dismissed. Thereafter, the first respondent filed I.A.6 of 2020 under Order 41
Rule 27 C.P.C, for adducing additional evidence. The 1 st appellate Court
allowed the application and permitted one document to be received as an
additional evidence. The petitioner has challenged the same before this Court
by way of C.M.A.Nos.1150, 1162, and 1165 of 2021, this Court confirmed
the order of remand passed by the first appellate Court and granted an outer
limit of six months to the trial Court to dispose of the suit. This Court also
affirmed the permission granted to receive one additional document.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner moved Civil Appeal Nos.6150 – 6152 of
2023 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside
the order of the remand and directed the first appellate Court to decide the
appeal on merits. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had disposed of the said Civil
Appeal Numbers with the following directions:
“In our view, this course of action which is completely impermissible. Firstly,
the respondent was negligent in not getting the documents exhibited as filed by
them and now seeks to take advantage of that fact to seek remand before the trial
Court. If the Appellate Court was of the view that it is a crucial document, it was
for the appellate Court to consider that document by treating as an additional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 04:45:19 pm )
evidence and deciding the matter on merits. Nothing more and nothing less was
required to be done.
We have thus, no hesitation in setting aside the orders passed by the First
Appellate Court dated 11.01.2021 and the impugned order of the High Court
dated 06.01.2022 and remit the matters back to the First Appellate Court for
consideration on merits of the appeals filed by the respondent(s).
The appeals accordingly stand allowed leaving parties to bear their own
costs.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6153-6156/2023 @SLP(C) No. 24201-24204/2022
Leave granted. Service is complete but none appears for the respondent.
In view of the orders passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 6150-6152/2023 @ SLP(C)
NOS.8262-8264/2022, the orders passed in the impugned order(s) dated
05.09.2022 to the extent it observes that there should be restraint against the
appellant(s) not to alienate the property has to be decided as it will be for the
First Appellate Court now to consider the appeals of the respondent(s) on merits
and naturally also examine whether any interim order at all is required to be
granted or not. Thus, those observations are set aside.
The appeals are allowed in terms aforesaid.”
3. Mr.K.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for the petitioner states that,
after this Court has granted six months time to the trial Court to dispose of the
appeal and thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside that order,
directed the first appellate Court to decide the matter, the petitioner also moved
this Court by way of revision viz., C.R.P.No.4287, 4291 and 4293 of 2025,
where I had issued the direction for disposal of the appeal on merits by
31.12.2025. In the interregnum period, the first respondent has chosen to file
the application, seeking to implead 74 proposed respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 04:45:19 pm )
4. According to Mr.K.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for the petitioner,
that the present petition to implead the proposed respondents is only to protract
the proceedings and to scuttle the legitimate rights that have accrued to the
petitioner.
5. Per contra, Mr.R.Subramanian, the learned counsel for the first
respondent, states that the petitioner has already filed his counter in the
application to implead 74 respondents and therefore, at this juncture, it is not
proper for the petitioner to move this Court, that too, under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to strike of I.A.No.8 of 2025.
6. He would also invite my attention to the direction issued by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, that the appellant should not alienate the property
without the issue being decided, which passage has already been extracted
herein above. It is his submission that in defiance of the direction, the petitioner
has alienated the property, which has necessitated the 1 st respondent to file an
application to implead the various respondents.
7. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the application is due for the
enquiry before the first Appellate Court, I am not inclined to allow the revision.
However, at the same time, the requirement of issuing notice to the proposed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 04:45:19 pm )
respondents at this stage may not arise. The first appellate Court shall hear the
petitioner and the first respondent based on the affidavit and the petition filed by
the 1st respondent and the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner and decide the
application viz., I.A.No.8 of 2025. If the first appellate Court is of the view that
the 74 proposed respondents are proper and necessary parties for arriving at a
decision in the first appeal, then it shall allow the application, and thereafter,
issue notice to the newly added parties. In case, if the first appellate Court is of
the view that the proposed respondents are not proper and necessary parties,
then, it is open to the first appellate Court to reject the application viz., I.A.No.8
of 2025 and proceed to dispose of the appeal by 30.04.2026.
8. With the above observations and directions, this Civil Revision Petition
is disposed of. No costs.
20-02-2026
Jd
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
To
The Additional Subordinate Court, Hosur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 04:45:19 pm )
P.B.BALAJI J.
jd
20-02-2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 04:45:19 pm )
