Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 1047
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
Tmt. Radha Bai - Petitioners
Vs.
Devaki Ammal - Respondents
C.R.P. PD No.855 of 2017 and C.M.P.Nos.4221 & 6986 of 2017
Decided On : 01-06-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. K.Meenakshisundaram
For the Respondents: Mr. P.K.Sabapathi
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has discretionary power to implead subsequent transferees pending suit at any stage by exercising the power conferred under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
Headnote:
Impleadment - Civil Revision Petition - Order 1 Rule 10 CPC - 2011 (3) MLJ 452, 2004 (3) LW 769, 2014 (4) LW 302, 2015 (4) CTC 293 - The court held that the subsequent transferee pending suit can be impleaded at any stage by exercising discretionary power conferred on the court by Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the present case and the 7th respondent is not a necessary and proper party to the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a Civil Revision Petition against the order rejecting to implead the pendite-lite purchaser as 9th defendant in the suit. The respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with laying of pipelines by the 5th defendant for the water and sewerage connection to the house of the plaintiffs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the 7th respondent is not a necessary and proper party to the suit and dismissed the Civil Revision Petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the 7th respondent should be impleaded as the 9th defendant in the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the subsequent transferee pending suit can be impleaded at any stage by exercising discretionary power conferred on the court by Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, and the court directed the trial court to dispose of the suit on merits and in accordance with the law.
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 08.02.2017 made in I.A.No.11488 of 2016 in O.S.No.8954 of 2011 on the file of the XIV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, rejecting to implead the pendite-lite purchaser as 9th defendant in the suit.
2. The petitioners are the defendants 1 to 4, the respondents 1 & 2 are the plaintiffs, third respondent is the 5th defendant, respondents 4 to 6 are defendants 6 to 8 and the 7th respondent is the proposed 9th defendant in the suit filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 4 from interfering with laying of pipelines by the 5th defendant for the water and sewerage connection to the house of the plaintiffs in E and F of the plaint.
3. The petitioners herein (defendants 1 to 4) filed written statement on 03.07.2014 and are contesting the suit. Trial commenced. Both the parties let in evidence and completed their evidence. The suit was posted for arguments. At that stage, the petitioners herein filed I.A.No.11488 of 2016 to implead the 7th respondent as proposed 9th defendant in the suit. According to the petitioners the first respondent had executed a settlement deed dated 29.05.2015 settling the suit property to the 7th respondent and therefore she has no right to contest the suit and prayed for impleading the 7th respondent as 9th defendant in the suit. The respondents 1 and 2 filed counter affidavit and opposed the said application. According to them, the respondents 1 and 2 filed suit for injunction against the petitioners for not to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is for the respondents 1 and 2 to prove their case that they are in possession and the petitioners are interfering with their possession. Though the first respondent settled the property on the 7th respondent, who is her grandson, the first respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. When the petitioners interfered with the possession of respondents 1 and 2, they filed suit for injunction restraining the petitioners and therefore prayed for dismissal of the application filed to implead the 7th respondent as 9th defendant in the suit.
4. The learned Trial Judge, considering the averments in the affidavit, counter affidavit, nature of relief sought for by the respondents 1 & 2 and the arguments of the parties, dismissed the application holding that the 2nd respondent who is the owner of the suit property can maintain the suit and the issue to be decided in the suit can be decided in the absence of 7th respondent.
5. Against the said order of dismissal dated 08.02.2017 made in I.A.No.11488 of 2016 in O.S.No.8954 of 2011, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 7th respondent is a necessary and proper party to effectively adjudicate the issue involved in the present suit. It is well settled law that the transferee pending suit must be added as a necessary party as the transferor would loose all her right and interest in the litigation. The Court below failed to consider the issues raised by the petitioners with regard to the merits of the case. The reasoning given by the learned Judge that the respondents 1 & 2, as dominus litus are entitled to implead the parties to the suit whom according to them are necessary parties. The said principle apply only at the time of filing of the suit and not for impleading parties subsequent to filing of the suit. The learned Judge has not properly considered the scope and object of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC wherein the courts has been given power to implead proper and necessary party at any stage. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the following judgments in support of his case.
(i) 2011 (3) MLJ 452 [M.K.M.Mohammed Nazar & Others]
(ii) 2004 (3) LW 769 [V.L.Dhandapani v. Revathy Ramachandran & others]
(iii) 2014 (4) LW 302 [Joseph Joys v. Jesu Jebamalai & others]
(iv) 2015 (4) CTC 293 [Devaki Thiyagar
