The revision is directed against the order refusing to implead the proposed party as Defendant Nos.10 and 11 in the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs. The revision petitioner is the proposed 10th defendant.
2. It is the case of the proposed parties before the court below, that they have purchased the properties at Palavakkam Village. However, in their land, a sign board was put up by stating that E.A.No.100 of 1941 in O.S.No.80 of 1996 is pending before the Chingleput Court and the property belongs to one T.C.Padmavathi. On an enquiry, it was found that the case was still pending and therefore in order to implead themselves in the suit contending that they are the necessary parties, have filed the application in I.A.No.171 of 2015.
(ii) The said application was resisted by the plaintiffs, being a dominus litus in the suit, by contending that the proposed parties have not established their ownership over the suit property and that they are not in any way connected with the suit. Accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of the said application.
(iii) After hearing both sides, the learned trial Judge has pointed out that only in the affidavit filed in support of the said application the proposed parties have stated that the property was purchased by them in the year 2004 whereas someone else had put up the board on the land mentioning about the suit. Though it was claimed by the proposed parties that they have obtained patta along with two other persons and they had also purchased Survey Nos.99 and 99/2 in Palavakkam Village, the proposed parties have not marked any documents in support of their contention. Since the proposed parties had not given any substantial material to implead themselves as a necessary party to the suit, the learned trial Judge dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the proposed 10th defendant alone has filed this revision.
3. Heard both sides.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that sufficient materials are available with her to prove her right and title in the suit property. However it is omitted to be marked before the trial court. But to show her bona fides, the petitioner has not furnished the same even before this Court, in this revision.
5. In such circumstances, it could only be held that the revision petitioner is not a necessary party to the suit having any right or title over the suit property. Accordingly, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the court below.
6. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.01.2017 vj2 Index: yes/No Internet: yes To The Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J., vj2 CRP PD No.3586 of 2016 19.01.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in