A third-party applicant cannot be impleaded in an injunction suit if their claim is based on unrelated property, reaffirming that such lawsuits are judgments in personam, not in rem.

JUDGMENT :

(K. NATARAJAN, J.)

This petition is filed by the petitioner/third party applicant by challenging the impugned order passed by the Additional Munsiff Court, Cherthala in IA No.02/2023 in O.S.No.644/2009 dated 08.11.2024.

2. Notice issued to all the respondents were served. However, only the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent is represented, in this petition.

3. The case of the petitioner before the trial court is that the petitioner filed IA to implead the petitioner as additional defendant in the suit, filed by the respondents 1 to 3 as against respondents 4 to 6 in OS No.644/2009 for seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against respondents 4 to 6 in respect of plaint schedule item 1 of the property. When the matters pending for adjudication, the concerned petitioner filed IA to implead himself as additional defendant in the suit, in the said case which came to be dismissed by the trial court, hence the petitioner is approached this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that he purchased the property from the 1^st defendant, i.e., 4^th respondent on 24.04.2010, therefore, he has a right over the property. Hence, he is a necessary party to be impleaded in the suit, to be heard and dispose of the suit by the trial Court. But, the trial court without considering the matter properly and without appreciating the documents on record, wrongly rejected the application. Hence, prayed for setting aside Ext.P7 order of the trial court and to implead himself as additional defendant in the said suit.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent, who is the 1^st defendant in the trial court, objected the petition contending that the claim of the petitioner was through the 1^st defendant who, said to be purchased the property in April 2010, which is nothing to do with the plaint schedule property, it is altogether different properties. Therefore, he is not a necessary party in the said Suit. Hence, the trial court rightly dismissed the IA filed by the petitioner. Therefore, do not require any interference.

6. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1^st defendant /4^th respondent was not filed any objection in the main application filed by thr petitioner, whereas, the Respondent Nos.1 to 3/plaintiffs have filed the objection to the application.

7. Having heard the arguments and perused the records. The points that are under consideration are:-

i. Whether the petitioner is necessary and proper party to the Suit, pending between Respondents 1 to 3 and Respondents 4 to 6 and whether the order of the trial court is called for any interference?

8. On perusal of the records, it is seen that Respondents 1 to 3 in this Court have filed Suit against the respondents 4 to 6 who are defendant Nos.1 to 3, seeking perpetual injunction in OS No.644 of 2009 in respect of plain schedule item No.1. Though, the 1^st defendant has taken a contention that the properties not in existence and the matter is on the trial even the evidence of the parties are almost complete. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that when the commissioner came to the spot for inspection and measuring the properties, the commissioner also to measure the property of the petitioner, thereby, he came to know that there is a dispute. Hence, he filed an application before the Court for impleading himelf as a party. Whereas, the very first defendant who was the vendor of the petitioner, objected the petition, contended that property sold to the present petitioner/3^rd party applicant, is altogether different properties from the plain schedule item number No.1 which was claimed by the plaintiffs