The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff challenging the order and decreetal order dated 9.6.2009 passed in I.A.No.201 of 2007 in O.S.No.360 of 2005 on the file of the First Additional Sub Judge, Erode.
2. The suit has been filed for cancelling the sale deed dated 17.8.2005 and for other relief. Pending suit I.A.No.201 of 2007 has been filed to implead the Surampatty Municipality, as third defendant in the suit. The reason to implead the third party municipality is that the revision petitioner/plaintiff has been paying tax all along and suddenly at the behest of the second defendant, the tax has been collected from him. In order to ensure that no further complication is made in the suit, the revision petitioner/plaintiff seeks for impleading the municipality.
3. The I.A.No.201 of 2007 was resisted by the respondents/defendants including the third party municipality. The court below did not accede to the request of the revision petitioner/plaintiff and dismissed the I.A.No.201 of 2007 stating that in the suit no relief is sought for against the proposed third party municipality. The Court below further observed that since no interim relief was sought against the proposed third party municipality, the subject matter of the lis can be decided between the revision petitioner/plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2, the proposed third party municipality has no role in the adjudication of the suit. On that premise, the I.A.No.201 of 2009 was dismissed.
4. The revision petitioner/plaintiff has filed the revision petition stating that the proposed third party municipality is a statutory body and cannot collect tax from two persons for the same property. The proposed third party municipality is collecting tax from the second defendant whereas the plaintiff is in occupation of the property and there is a collusion between the third party municipality and the defendants 1 and 2.
5. It is trite law that anything done pending suit by either of the parties, is covered by the doctrine of lis pendens. The collection of tax from one or other parties cannot change the character of the suit or the property. In this case, the main relief sought for in the suit is for cancellation of the sale deed dated 17.8.2005. In the counter, the third party municipality has stated that it is a statutory body of the Government and acts upon with in the boundaries of Acts and Rules and such other directions of the Government. It never goes beyond boundaries. It also states that there is no collusion with the defendants 1 and 2. In such view of the matter, the apprehension raised by the revision petitioner that the collection of the tax will adversely interfere with the adjudication of the suit cannot be countenanced at this point of time. There is no serious infirmity in the order of the court below to interfere with by this court.
6. Finding no merits, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
ts To The First Additional Sub Judge, Erode