Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 5076
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T. RAJA
M.K.M. Mohammed Nazar & Others
Versus
R.A. Venugopal (Died) & Others
C.R.P. No. 190 of 2005 and C.M.P. No. 1943 of 2005
Decided On :Decided On : 26-11-2010
For the Petitioners:C. Karthick, Advocate.
For the Respondents:S. Kumar, Advocate.
The addition of parties is a question of judicial discretion to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case.
Headnote:
Impleading - Civil Revision - Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. - 1998 (1) L.W. 772, 1992 (2) L.W. 720 - The court discussed the application for impleading the defendants, the substantial interest of the respondents in the suit property, and the legal provisions under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. The court held that the impleading parties had substantial interest in the suit property and that the addition of parties is a question of judicial discretion to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and injunction regarding a property. The impleading parties claimed substantial interest in the suit property and requested to be joined as necessary parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impleading parties had substantial interest in the suit property and that their presence as necessary parties was essential for a complete and final decision on the questions involved in the proceeding.
Issues: The main issue was whether the impleading application should be allowed at a belated stage after the trial was completed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the addition of parties is a question of judicial discretion to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case.
Final Decision: The civil revision petition was dismissed, and the trial Court was directed to dispose of the suit within three months.
1. The present civil revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional District Munsif Court, Nanguneri in I.A. No. 615 of 2004 in O.S. No. 939 of 1996, dated 31.12.2004, whereby the prayer for impleading the defendants 4 and 5 in the said suit was allowed and that order is under challenge.
2. Mr. C. Karthick, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has assailed the said order on the ground that the Trial Court erred in law in allowing the impleading petition, for the reason that when the trial of the suit was already completed, the impleading application came to be filed at the stage of argument, is only for the purpose of dragging the matter. But overlooking that tactics employed by the respondents, the trial Court wrongly allowed the impleading application at the belated stage, as a result grave prejudice caused to the petitioners/plaintiffs herein.
3. It was also contended that there was no cause of action as against the respondents for filing the application for implement, if at all they are aggrieved they should have laid independent and separate suit. Without going for filing a separate suit, the impleading application, that too, after the trial was over, should not have been entertained by the trial Court. In support of his claim, he has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Somasundaram Chettiar and Another v. Balasubramaniam (1998) 2 MLJ 562 : 1998 (1) L.W. 772 for the proposition that no application for implement should be allowed long after the filing of the written statement by the defendant, that too, after the completion of the trial and also relied upon the another judgment in Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corpn, of Greater Bombay (1992) 2 MLJ 55 : 1992 (2) L.W. 720, wherein the apex Court has held that application by a third party under Order 1 Rule 10 to implead himself as a party should be refused, if the intervenor has no cause of action against the plaintiff relating to the subject matter of the existing action. For this reason, sought for setting aside the impugned order by allowing the present Civil Revision.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents whose application was allowed by the Trial Court for impleading them as one of the necessary parties submitted that they are got substantial interest in the suit filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 939 of 1996, since the petitioners/plaintiffs herein have failed to implead them as necessary parties, after coming to know that the said suit is pending on the file of District Munsif Court, Valliyoor, they have filed the present application for implement.
5. It was also contended that the plaintiffs ‘ property bearing survey No. 177/B2 admeasuring 2.69 acres belong to the family of the petitioners herein and the deceased brother Kumarasamy Naidu and the Ramamoorthy Naidu and the present respondents ‘ mother Tmt. Guruvachiammal purchased ½ share from all the sharers by sale deeds, dated 5.1.1946, 6.5.1946 and 2.7.1946. Thereafter, the impleading applicant/respondent no. 1 herein and the deceased brothers Kumarasamy Naidu and Ramamoorthy Naidu already succeeded the properties devolved from the first petitioner ‘ s father. The first petitioner ‘ s mother Guruvachiammal relinquished her rights in favour of his sons namely the respondents herein and the two deceased brothers through registered release deeds. Since the plaint schedule properties in survey No. 177/B2 admeasuring 2.69 acres is covered under the said Sale deeds of the respondents mother and patta was also granted after subdivision in respect of S. No. 177/B2 to the impleading petitioners/respondents and their brothers in T.R. No. 454 of 1977, dated 30.6.1969. Thereafter, the impleading applicants/respondents herein are in joint enjoyment and possession. Therefore, it was contended that the impleading application was rightly allowed and such an order need not be interfered with by this Court. On that basis, gra
