The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendants 2 to 4 challenging the order and decreetal order dated 12.8.2009 passed in I.A.No.661 of 2009 in O.S.No.371 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Poonamallee.
2. The suit has been filed for partition and delivery of separate possession and to declare the sale deeds bearing registered document Nos.302 of 2005 and 5782 of 2005 executed by the first defendant and her father Pakkirisamy in favour of the defendants 2 to 4, the present revision petitioners as null and void to an extent of 3/5 share over the suit property. It is not disputed by the defendants 2 to 4, the revision petitioners that they have already filed their written statement and the evidence of plaintiff and the first defendant's side was closed. At that stage, when the suit was posted for examination of the defendants 2 to 4, the revision petitioners, I.A.No.661 of 2009 has been filed by the defendants 2 to 4, the revision petitioners to implead the power of attorney agent of the first defendant and her father late Pakkirisamy as fifth defendant in the suit. The I.A.No.661 of 2009 was dismissed after contest. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants 2 to 4 filed the revision petition.
3. The court below held that the proposed fifth defendant, who is the power of attorney of the first defendant and her father late Pakkirisamy can speak about the sale deeds, but she has no locus standi to speak about the relationship among the plaintiffs and the defendants 2 to 4 in a suit for partition, where parties contesting their right to the property belonging to late Rukmani, said to have died intestate. If the defendants 2 to 4, the revision petitioners want to throw light on the nature of the transaction, they can always summon the proposed party to give evidence, and therefore, she is not a necessary party. Relying upon the decision reported in 2009(3) CTC 116, the trial court concluded that the application filed at the fag end of the trial is only to protract the litigation. The trial court held that the proposed party is not a necessary party to the lis.
4. At the time of admission, learned counsel for the revision petitioners while referring to the power of attorney did not place the power of attorney or the copy of written statement filed before the trial court for consideration. He, however, fairly submitted that based on the power of attorney, the sale deeds have been executed. If this is accepted, then it is clear that the transaction has already been concluded based on the power of attorney which is not in force now. In such a situation, the trial court was justified in dismissing the application filed to implead the power of attorney agent. He has no role in the claim of rival parties to the partition suit. At best her evidence will be of some relevance and that has to be decided by the trial court.
5. As rightly pointed out by the trial court, the revision petitioners can always summon to the power of attorney agent for giving evidence. Hence, the finding of the trial court that the proposed party is not a necessary party to the suit is tenable. Further, a copy of written statement has not been filed before this court to enable this court to come to a conclusion that any such plea was taken by the defendants 2 to 4, the revision petitioners, before the court below. The court below has rightly come to conclusion that the application has been filed belatedly to protract the litigation after the evidence of plaintiff and the first defendant was closed. The reason given by the trial court is justified from the facts as narrated above. There is no serious infirmity in the order of the court below so as to interfere with the same.
6. Finding no merits, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
ts To The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Poonamallee