This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiffs against the order dated 28.7.2009 passed in IA.No.32/2009 in IA.No.26/2009 in OS.No.7/2009 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Ramanathapuram, allowing the impleadment of the 7th defendant.
2. The shorts facts which are essential for disposal of this Civil Revision Petition are given below:-
The petitioners have filed the above said suit for partition and separate possession of 2/9th share in 16 items of the suit properties on the basis that those properties belonged to their parents. The defendants 1 to 6 are their brothers and sisters and the 7th defendant is the purchaser of the 1st item of the property from the 6th defendant, one of the brothers of the petitioners. The petitioners have already filed an application in IA.No.26/2009 restraining the 9th defendant, the 2nd respondent herein from releasing the document bearing No.2254/2009 the sale deed executed by the 6th defendant in favour of the 7th defendant who is the 1st respondent herein and an order of interim injunction has been granted which is still in force.
3. While so, the 1st respondent/7th defendant has filed the interlocutory application in IA.NO.32/2009 for impleading him as a party respondent in IA.No.26/2009. The said application has been contested by the petitioners stating that the 7th defendant is not a proper and necessary party in IA.No.26/2009 and he should work out his remedy only in the main suit.
4. The trial court overruled the said objection and allowed IA.32/2009 holding that the 7th defendant has got direct interest in the issue as the Sub Registrar is sought to be restrained from releasing the document to the 7th defendant who has got the document validly registered in accordance with law. As against the said order, the petitioners have filed this Civil Revision Petition.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the relief is claimed only against the 2nd respondent restraining him from releasing the document to the parties in question and the 1st respondent/7th defendant is not a proper and necessary party in the said application as no relief is sought for as against the 7th defendant. The learned counsel would further contend that the petition for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10(2) is not maintainable in an interlocutory application and hence the order passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside.
6. Based on the plea made by the petitioners/ plaintiffs that the 6th defendant who is one of the sharers had sold the entire 1st item of the property to the 7th defendant and if the latter is allowed to receive the document which is pending before the 2nd respondent, he is likely to alienate the property to third parties to defeat the interest of the other sharers and that would lead to multiplicity of proceedings, the trial court has granted an order of interim injunction in IA.No.26/2009. In the said application, the 2nd respondent/9th defendant has filed a counter inter alia stating that the sale deed has been registered in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Indian Registration Act and under Section 61(1) and (2) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Manual the authority concerned is liable to hand over the documents to the purchaser or to his nominee and contended that the petition for interim injunction is not maintainable. However, the trial court passed an order of interim injunction restraining the 2nd respondent from releasing the document to the 1st respondent/7th defendant.
7. In the said background of facts, now the question for consideration is as to whether the 1st respondent/7th defendant can be impleaded as a party respondent in IA.NO.26/2009. Though no relief is claimed as against the 7th defendant but the 2nd respondent is sought to be restrained from releasing the document to the 7th defendant and the object is to retain the document till a decree is passed in the main suit for partition. In such view of the matter, the presence of the 7th defendant is considered appropriate for effective decision of the case though no relief has been claimed against him and therefore he would be a proper party though not a necessary party. The order passed in IA.NO.26/2009 adversely affects the interest of the 1st respondent/7th defendant and in order to effectively and completely adjudicate the points at issue, it is necessary to implead him as a respondent in the said application .
8. It is relevant to point that if in the opinion of the court the presence of a person would be helpful to effectively adjudicate upon all points in dispute, then certainly it has the power to direct his addition to the cause. After all, it is the claim of the petitioner which will be adjudicated upon on its merits. That is far different from saying that the plaintiff is dominus litis. It should be borne in mind that an equally important principle of procedure is that as far as possible multiplicity of proceedings shall be avoided. Now, in the present case, if the 7th defendant who is already a party to the suit is not impleaded in this application, he may be driven to file another proceedings claiming the said relief by raising a dispute. If he is a party to the present proceedings, then there is not only an effective adjudication, but also a final adjudication of the dispute raised by the petitioner.
9. The powers conferred by Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC are extremely wide and the court has got power to add a party even in the interlocutory application. The court ought to endeavour if possible, to settle effectually as may be all the matters in controversy arising out of the subject matter by impleading the party interested in the said matter. In this way alone multiplicity of suits and conflict of decision can be avoided.
10. The trial court has taken into consideration all those aspects and has allowed the impleadment of the 1st respondent/7th defendant as a party in the interlocutory application and I do not find any illegality or infirmity or want of jurisdiction in the order passed by the court below, warranting interference by this court.
11. in the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected MP is closed.
Srcm To:
The Principal District Munsif, Ramanathapuram