Inveighing the order dated 26.6.2007 passed in I.A.No.26 of 2006 in O.S.No.2351 of 2005 by the VI Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, this civil revision petition is focussed.
2. Despite the names of the counsel for both sides having been printed in the cause list, there is no appearance.
3. Broadly but briefly, narratively but pithily, the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus:-
4. The suit O.S.No.2351 of 2005 was filed by the first respondent/plaintiff seeking the following reliefs:
(a) to direct the defendants to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff, an extent of 80 square feet vacant house site in an extent of 997 square feet of house site in premises bearing Plot No.194-B, Door No.12A, VII Street, Pudur, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-600 083 situate in the Northern corner measuring North to South 8 feet on the Eastern side and 8 feet on the Western side, East to West 10 feet on the Northern side and 10 feet on the Southern side.
(b) to restrain the 3rd defendant, their men or agent from providing new Electricity connection in favour of defendants 1 and 2."
During the pendency of the said suit, the revision petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 filed the I.A.No.26 of 2006 under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. seeking the Slum Clearance Board to be impleaded as 4th defendant in the suit, for proper adjudication of the matter. Whereupon, notice was ordered by the lower Court and the proposed defendant, namely, the Slum Clearance Board, which has been arrayed as R3 herein as well as therein, informed the Court that it had no objection for being impleaded as one of the defendants in the suit. However, the plaintiff objected for impleadment of R3 as one of the defendants in the suit. The trial Court ultimately dismissed the I.A. Animadverting upon such order, this civil revision petition has been focussed by the defendants 1 & 2.
5. Since this is being a revision petition, on perusal of the records, I am satisfied that no more adjournment is required and the matter could be decided on merits.
6. A bare perusal of the order of the lower Court, would say the least, is far from satisfactory. The lower Court, in its cryptic order simply referred to the earlier common judgement in O.S.Nos.1094 and 3502 of 2002 dated 30.11.2004 passed by the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, and observed as though in the present suit between the plaintiff and the defendants, there is no necessity to implead the Slum Clearance Board.
7. An excerpt from paragraph 3 of the plaint would run thus:
"3. The plaintiff states that she being a Schedule caste by profession cobbler is earning a meager livelihood amount by mending and repairing shoes, sitting on the roadside in Ashok Nagar. The schedule mentioned suit property situate at Plot No.194, VII Street, Ashok Nagar, Pudur, Chennai-600 083 described in the schedule property having a total extent of 997 square feet was originally allotted for the purpose of having a well to the local residents by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, when the allotment was made in respect of housing plots to the poors, in the Ashok Nagar locality. The plaintiff further states that she occupied the suit property and had put up a small hut in the suit property in the year 1983 and since then the family members of the plaintiff and the plaintiff are living peacefully in the suit property for more than 22 years."
The above extract would ex facie and prima facie demonstrate and exemplify that even as per the plaintiff, she has not obtained any sale deed from the Slum Clearance Board or any express conferment of ownership in her favour by the Slum Clearance Board. However, the plaintiff's contention is that by virtue of her possession and lapse of time and also by virtue of the order passed in W.P.No.13462 of 1989 dated 4.10.1989 she became the absolute owner of the suit property.
8. Even as per the averments in the plaint, as per the earlier common judgement, cited supra, the 80 sq.feet, which is the subject matter of the present suit, was not decreed in favour of the plaintiff when the plaintiff sought for injunction. In this suit, even though there is no express prayer for declaration of title, yet incidentally, the Court, for deciding the claim of the plaintiff for recovery of possession of the said 80 sq.feet from the defendants, has to go into the right and title of the plaintiff over the suit property. The previous proceedings referred to in the plaint itself would display and demonstrate that there was dispute between the Slum Clearance Board and the plaintiff in respect of ownership over the suit property. In such a case, impleadment of Slum Clearance Board could in no way be visualised as illegal or one not contemplated under law as unnecessary.
9. It is a trite proposition of law that there should not be multiplicity of proceedings. The Slum Clearance Board also expressed its desire to participate in the proceedings. Hence, in these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that impleadment of the Slum Clearance Board would further the cause of justice rather than leading to travesty of justice. As such, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order of the lower Court is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Msk To The VI Asst.Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai