Impleadment of a third party must be necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the suit issues, and should not enlarge the scope of the suit or divert the issue from biparti to tri party.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the order, dated 21.09.2016, made in I.A.No.176 of 2015, in O.S.No.752 of 2008, on the file of the III Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli.)

1. The revision petitioner herein is the petitioner/third party, the first respondent is the first respondent / plaintiff and the respondents 2 and 3 are the respondents 2 & 3 / defendants 1 and 2 before the trial Court. The revision petitioners filed the instant Civil Revision Petition against the order of dismissal passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirupathur, in an application for impleading the revision petitioner as third defendant in the suit.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

3. The short facts, which give rise to the instant Civil Revision Petition, are as under:

The plaintiff / first respondent has filed the suit against the respondents 2 and 3 / defendants, for declaration, to declare the sale deed executed by the second and third respondents as null and void. According to the plaint averments, it appears that the plaintiff along with his legal heirs, have given a registered power in favour of the first defendant, under document No.1108/2004, dated 24.05.2004. According to the first respondent / plaintiff, the said general power of attorney was subsequently revoked on 07.06.2007 under document No.1604/2007 dated 19.06.2007, and that such factum was duly intimated to the first respondent. However, subsequent to the revocation of the power deed, the first defendant fraudulently sold the suit property in favour of his wife, who is the second defendant / third respondent. Hence, according to the first respondent / plaintiff, the sale transaction between the second and third respondents, namely the defendants 1 & 2, are sham and nominal and not binding upon him. Hence, he came forward with the suit.

4. In the said suit, the respondents 2 and 3 / defendants 1 & 2 have filed a written statement disputing the contention of the first respondent / plaintiff. While so, the petitioner herein, who is a third party to the suit, has come up with an application that the first respondent / plaintiff, subsequent to the revocation of the earlier power of attorney has executed another power of attorney on 19.09.2008 in favour of one T.A. Punithan and that the said Punithan has executed a sale deed in his name (petitioner), on 27.08.2012, and that by virtue of the said sale, he became the owner of the suit property and that he has been in the possession and enjoyment over the suit property. Hence, he came up with an application to implead himself in the above suit, on the ground that, he is a necessary and proper party. He would further submit that the impleadment would avoid the multiplicity of proceedings.

5. The said application was stoutly objected by the second respondent / first defendant. He has disputed the power of attorney, dated 19.09.2008, and has also disputed the sale in the name of the petitioner herein. Similarly, the first respondent / plaintiff has also filed a counter statement, contending that the said Punithan has colluded with the petitioner herein as well as with Sub Registrar, Srirangam. He would further submit that for the such execution of the sale deed, no sale consideration was paid to him.

6. Considering the submissions of all the parties, the learned trial Judge, has rejected the impleading application of the petitioner on the ground that, the impleadment of the petitioner will in no way helpful for the decisions of the issues involved in the instant suit and that he would be neither necessary party nor proper party.

7. Aggrieved with the above order, the petitioner has come up with the instant Civil Revision Petition.

8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the sub