The revision has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed in I.A. No.1024 of 2006 in O.S. No.322 of 2006, wherein the Court below has rejected the application filed for impleading the petitioner in the suit.
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:
The first respondent herein filed a suit earlier in O.S. No.211 of 2005 against the third parties. Challenging the same an appeal was filed and the same was allowed. The petitioner herein has also filed a suit in O.S. No.305 of 2006 against the first respondent herein seeking the relief of permanent injunction before the District Munsif Court, Thanjavur. Thereafter the respondents herein filed a suit in O.S. No.322 of 2006 against he respondents herein seeking the relief of mandatory injunction directing the second respondent herein to issue the license to fishing in the tanks described in item 8, 10 and 11 of the schedule mentioned in the suit properties belonging to the temple. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the he is the licensee to do fishing from the temple and the judgment passed by the court in O.S. No.322 of 2006 would substantially affect his rights, more so when he has already filed a suit against the first respondent herein.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's rights would be very much affected by the ultimate outcome of the proceedings. According to the learned counsel that in view of the pendency of the earlier suit between the petitioner and the first respondent, the petitioner will have to be impleaded and the petitioner is a necessary and proper party for proper adjudication of the case.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment reported in 2007 2 CTC 73 (S.Krishnan vs. Rathinavel Naicker and 22 others) in support of his case, to contend that if the ultimate outcome of the proceeding is likely to affect a party adversely, the said party can be impleaded. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment reported in 2000 3 MLJ 739 (Beebee John vs. Sheik Hussain and others) to contend that a party can be impleaded in a litigation which if passed in favour of the other party would vitally affect his rights. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in 2006 3 MLJ 105 (Bhogadi Kannababu and others vs. Vuggina Pydamma and others) to submit that for effective and complete adjudication of all the issues a party can be impleaded.
5. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in a suit, the plaintiff is a dominus litus and there is no necessity to implead the petitioner herein. It is further submitted that it is for the first respondent being the plaintiff to choose the defendants. It is also submitted that issue to be decided in the present suit is as to whether the first respondent is entitled to succeed in his suit on his pleadings or not. Hence the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the revision is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents. It is seen in the present case that there was an earlier suit filed by the first respondent in O.S. No.211 of 2005. The said suit has attained finality by filing the appeal and the Appellate Court has rendered his judgment in A.S. No.79 of 2006. It is also seen that the petitioner herein has filed a suit against the respondent in O.S. No.305 of 2006 before the same Court-District Munsif Court, Thanjavur and the said suit is also pending. The present suit has been filed by the first respondent against the second respondent Municipality seeking the relief of mandatory injunction. Therefore, it is seen on record that there are dispute between the petitioner and the respondents over the claiming right to do fishing in the ponds.
7. Both the suits filed by the respective parties are also pending before the same Court. Hence this Court is of the opinion that in order to have a proper adjudication interest of justice would require that both the suits would be tried together by way of a joint trial and common judgment will have to be rendered in both the cases. This Court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the parties by such an order. This Court also feels that joint trial would also prevent conflict of judgments between the parties. Hence the Court below is directed to have a joint trial of O.S. No.305 of 2005 and O.S. No.322 of 2006 and dispose of the above said suits within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. With this observation the revision is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
cs To
1.The Commissioner, Thanjavur Municipality, Thanjavur.
2.The District Munsif Court, Thanjavur