A plaintiff cannot be compelled to add parties against their will unless required by law; acceptance of costs indicates acceptance of the court's order.

-

COMMON ORDER

CRP.No.867 of 2025 has been filed challenging the order in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.5418 of 1996 on the file of the XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

2.CRP.No.752 of 2025 has been filed to set aside the order dated 10.01.2025 in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.4678 of 1997 on the file of the XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

3.I have heard Mr.Nithyesh Nataraj, learned counsel for Mr.Anirudh A.Sriram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Saikumaran, learned counsel for respondent 1 and 2, Mr.S.Ramesh, learned counsel for the 4^th respondent in both revisions.

-

4.Mr.Nithyesh Nataraj, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that O.S.No.4678 of 1997 has been filed by the revision petitioner seeking the relief of declaration that the Sale Deed dated 28.09.1988 is not legally enforceable and binding on the plaintiff, non-est and void ab initio and for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from encumbering the suit property. In the said suit, I.A.No.2 of 2024 has been taken out by third parties, seeking to implead themselves as defendants 9 and 10. The said application was resisted by the revision petitioner. However, the Trial Court, by order dated 10.01.2025, has allowed the application, as against which, the revision in CRP.No.752 of 2025 has been filed.

5.Insofar as CRP.No.867 of 2025, in O.S.No.5418 of 1996 filed by the revision petitioner herein for direction to the defendants to execute a registered Sale Deed and to deliver possession, an interlocutory application in I.A.No.4 of 2024 has been filed again by the very same proposed defendants seeking to implead themselves as defendants 9 and 10 in the said suit as well. The said application also came to be allowed by the Trial Court, as against which the petitioner/plaintiff has filed CRP.No.867 of 2025.

6.Mr.Nithyesh Nataraj, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 1^st respondent was the owner of the property to an extent of around 10 grounds in Aminjikarai, Chennai and there was a dispute between the 1^st respondent and the 4^th respondent, resulting in proceedings being initiated and in the said suit, on 02.12.1986, a compromise was entered into, in and by which, the 1^st respondent agreed to sell the property of extent 10 grounds to the 4^th respondent. The 4^th respondent did not have sufficient funds to pay the sale consideration and hence, he approached the revision petitioner and it was agreed that the property would be purchased by both the 4^th respondent and the revision petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the document was also executed and presented for registration, but however, the Sub-Registrar, noting discrepancy in the survey number, refused to register the document and the document was kept pending.

-

7.It is the further case of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that though the revision petitioner had taken effective steps to correct the survey number, the respondent refused to come forward to execute the sale deed, which resulted in filing of O.S.No.5418 of 1996. In the meantime, the 1^st respondent has sold the property to 5^th respondent, as a result of which, O.S.No.4698 of 1997 has been filed to declare the sale deed executed in favour of the 5^th respondent, as null and void and for the consequential relief of permanent injunction. He would further state that the 1^st respondent has claimed under