IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 24.06.2022 PRONOUNCED ON : 01.09.2022 C O R A M :

The Hon'ble Mrs. Justice J. NISHA BANU C.R.P.No.3947 of 2019 and CMP.No.26040 of 2019 ---

Balu @ Jayabalan …Petitioner/Plaintiff .. Vs ..

1.V.Sanil Kumar ..1^st Respondent/Defendant 2.Alexander ..2^nd Respondent/proposed party PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order passed by the learned Principal Sub Court at Tindivanam in I.A.No.446 of 2017 in O.S.No.169 of 2016 on 30.08.2019.

For petitioner : Mr.M.Balasubramanian For respondents : R1 and R2 served – No appearance

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed as against the order passed by the learned Principal Sub Court, Tindivanam in I.A.No.446 of 2017 in O.S.No.169 of 2016 on 30.08.2019, whereby, the revision petitioner/plaintiff's application for impleading the proposed party, has been rejected.

2. According to the revision petitioner, the proposed party is the original owner of the property and hence, he is a necessary and proper party for adjudication of the suit. However, the learned Judge, dismissed the application for impleading based on the revocation deed which is only a secondary evidence.

3. In the suit filed by the plaintiff/revision petitioner, the prayer is for specific performance in respect of the sale deed executed between the plaintiff/revision petitioner and the defendant/1^st respondent on 30.09.2006. According to the plaintiff, the defendant is the Power of Attorney holder and has taken advance of huge amount for the sale of property, which is actually owned by the proposed 2nd respondent. So the plaintiff filed I.A.No.446 of 2017 in O.S.No.169 of 2016 for impleading the proposed party i.e, owner the property as 2^nd defendant.

4. In the said I.A., the defendant/1^st respondent filed counter and submitted that he is the power of attorney holder and based on the said power, he entered into sale agreement with the plaintiff, however, the said power of attorney is given by the proposed party/2^nd respondent and he acts only on the strength of the same and so the proposed party is a necessary party.

5. Per contra, the proposed party in his counter submitted that the power of attorney given to defendant/1^st respondent has been cancelled and he is not at all aware of the transactions held between the plaintiff and the defendant.

6. The learned Judge, found that the proposed party, by publishing notices in the daily newspaper on 04.10.2005 and 05.10.2005, cancelled the power of attorney deed given to defendant/1^st respondent and after the cancellation of power of attorney, the plaintiff and the defendant/1^st respondent entered into sale agreement, which was after the cancellation of general power of attorney deed by the proposed party on 18.10.2005, which clearly shows that the proposed 2^nd respondent has cancelled the power of attorney deed. Thereafter, on 30.09.2006, the sale deed has been executed between the plaintiff and the defendant/1^st respondent, wherein, in future dates, transactions between them has been noted.

7. The learned Judge, elaborately given the reasons that since the sale deed is dated 30.09.2006 which is after the cancellation of power of attorney and the suit has been filed after ten years of sale agreement, even though the proposed 2^nd respondent is the original owner of the property, the impleadment of the 2^nd respondent as party in the suit will cause serious prejudice and hardship to the proposed party and as such, dismissed the I.A., filed by the plaintiff.

8. This court do not find any infirmity in the reasonings given by the learned Judge, while rejecting the I.A., filed by the plaintiff. Accordingly, there is no merit in the Civil Revision Petition. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Interim order of stay granted in CMP, stands vacated.

01.09.2022 Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No nvsri To

1.The learned Principal Sub Judge, Tindivanam.

2.The Section O