The Civil Revision Petition has been filed by a third party in a suit in O.S.No.122 of 2004 on the file of the learned Sub Court, Ponamallee, after suffering an order of dismissal of an application to get herself to implead as 9th defendant in the suit filed by the 1st Respondent herein for declaration and permanent injunction against the Respondents 2 to 9 herein.
2.The above suit was filed for the relief of declaration to declare the sale deed dated 08.10.2003, executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant as null and void and permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agent, servants or anyone from interring with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property.
3.The Revision Petitioner who is a 3rd party to the above suit contending that he had purchased the suit property from the 2nd defendant/3rd respondent. Since the 1st respondent herein/plaintiff has instituted the above suit to declare the sale deed executed by 1st defendant/2nd respondent herein in favour of the 2nd defendant/3rd respondent as null and void and also obtained an interim injunction, as the fact remained Revision Petitioner has purchased the suit property from the 2nd defendant/3rd respondent herein by a registered sale deed dated 03.11.2004, he is necessary and proper party to the suit to safeguard his right and title in the suit property has filed an application in I.A.No.709 of 2011 under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of C.P.C. to implead her as 9th defendant in the above suit.
4.It is contended that on the side of the 1st respondent/plaintiff herein that the Revision Petitioner very well having Knowledge of Interim injunction operating in favour of the plaintiff as early as 2006, however executed a sale deed in favour of one Srinivasan on 03.03.2006.
5.Even prior to the above said sale deed, the respondent/plaintiff had sent legal notice to the revision petitioner. In the said circumstance, the said Srinivasan filed an application in I.A.No.203 of 2007 through his power agent to implead himself as a party to the suit and the same was dismissed. As against the same, he filed a petition in C.R.P.No.1179 of 2010 and the same was also dismissed.
6.Thereafter, the said Srinivasan filed a suit in O.S.No.557 of 2008 before the learned District Munsif Court, Ambathur in respect of the above suit and obtained an order of status quo, thus the petitioner herein is neither proper nor necessary party to the above suit.
7.Upon hearing both sides, the learned trial Judge, by the impugned order dated 16.04.2012, has dismissed the above said impleading application. Challenging the same the Revision petitioner is before this Court by way of this Civil Revision Petition.
8.I heard Mr.T.Karunakaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.Vijaya Raghavan, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Mr.J.Abdul Hadi, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and perused the entire material available on record. No representation on behalf of the respondents 2, 4 to 8.
9.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contents that the trial Court has erroneously dismissed the impleading application of the Revision Petitioner holding that no one should not be impleaded as the defendant merely because he would be incidentally affected by the Judgment.
10.The learned counsel would further submit that since the revision petitioner is the purchaser of the suit property from the 2nd defendant in order to protect her right, interest, title over the suit property, she is a just and necessary party to the suit as one of the defendant.
11.Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that the Revision Petitioner has no locus standi to file the above impleading application, as she has no right in the suit property and she sold the suit property pending suit to one Mr.Srinivasan on 03.03.2006. Earlier the Revision Petitioners vendees impleading application in the instant suit came to be dismissed. As against the same he filed the Civil Revision Petition and the same was also dismissed.
12.Whereas, subsequently the said Srinivasan filed yet another suit in O.S.No.557 of 2008 and hence she is not entitled to be impleaded in the above suit. Thus, the Trial Court was right in holding that ones assignee himself last the case assignor cannot be permitted to act for the assignee. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the instant Civil Revision Petition.
13.It reveals from the records that the revision petitioner has sold the suit property to one Mr.Srinivasan pending suit. Further, the impleading petition by the said Mr.Srinivasan also dismissed and against which the Civil Revision filed also was dismissed. In such circumstances, as rightly held by the trial Court, the presence of the revision petitioner is no way helpful to the Court to decide the issue involved in the suit. Further, the revision petitioner has lost her right over the suit property, since she had already sold the suit property to the above said Mr.Srinivasan. In the considered opinion of this Court also, the revision petitioner is neither a proper nor necessary party to the suit.
14.Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case on hand, I do not find any error or irregularity in the order passed by the Trial Court. This Civil Revision Petition devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
15.In the result:
(a) the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, by confirming the order in I.A.No.709 of 2011 in O.S.No.122 of 2004, passed by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Poonamallee, dated 16.04.2012;
(b) the Trial Court is directed to take up the suit on day-to-day basis, without giving any adjournment to either parties and dispose of the suit within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both the parties are hereby directed to give their fullest co-operation for early disposal of the suit. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
27.02.2017 Note:Issue order copy on 18.07.2018 vs Index : Yes Internet : Yes To The Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee.
M.V.MURALIDARAN, J.
vs Pre-delivery order made in C.R.P.(PD)No.2202 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 27.02.2017