Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 45470
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI, J
P.Shouri Subash Reddy – Appellant
Versus
L.Amalarani – Respondent
CRP.No.262 of 2021 | CMP.No.2469 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.V.S.Poosha Datta for Mr.Govind Chandrasekar
For the Respondents: Mrs.R.Aparna for R2 and R3
A party can be impleaded in an injunction suit only if they are deemed necessary and proper; mere possibility of their relevance does not suffice.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Article 227 - Proceedings for permanent injunction - A suit to restrain defendants from trespassing into suit property - Court allowed impleadment of a third party without the plaintiff’s request - Court held that such an impleadment is not warranted in an injunction suit where possession is the primary issue. (Paras 7, 10, 11)
(B) Impleadment - Criteria for - A party should be a necessary party only if the absence would impede the court’s ability to adjudicate effectively. Findings: The court determined that the third defendant was neither necessary nor proper for the determination of the issues at hand.
Result: The order permitting impleadment of the third defendant was set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petition challenges the impleadment order in the context of a civil revision petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the necessity of the third party in the suit for permanent injunction. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. the court's analysis and ruling concerning the main defendant's presence in the case. (Para 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. final ruling allowing the revision petition and the instructions for further actions. (Para 12) |
ORDER
The revision is preferred challenging the order of impleadment of the third party as the third defendant.
2. Heard Mr.V.S.Poosha Datta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.R.Aparna, learned Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3.
3. The first respondent, despite service of notice, has not chosen to appear either in person or through Counsel.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the suit was filed filed by the petitioner / plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner trespassing into the suit property. Therefore, he would contend that the plaintiff is entitle to choose a party against whom he seeks a decree and when he does not opt to implead the proposed 3rd defendant (since impleaded pursuant to the orders of the trial Court), the Court cannot compel the plaintiff to prosecute the suit as against an unnecessary party.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 would state that pursuant to the orders impleading the proposed 3rd defendant in the suit, the trial has commenced and the newly impleaded 3rd defendant has also cross examined the plaintiff's witnesses and she would therefore contend that now the case is posted for defendants' evidence, at this stage, the clock cannot be set back by reversing the order, permitting the impleading of the third party.
6. I have gone through the order passed by the Trial Court allowing the impleadment. I have also carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel on either side.
7. From the plaint, I am able to see the only relief sought for is a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants 1 and 2 in any manner to tresspassing into the suit property. The cause of action for the suit is also only that the plaintiff has purchased the suit property in 2012 and there has been an attempt to trespass into the suit property by the defendants. Hence, the suit came to be instituted. Pending the suit, the third defendant has taken out I.A.No.1514 of 2018, contending that she is a proper and necessary party to the suit and that the petitioner's right is not prejudiced or affected and therefore, in order to protect her right, she will have to be impleaded as one of the defendants.
8. The said application was resisted by the plaintiff stating that the
3rd defendant has no locus and she is neither a proper nor necessary party. The 2nd respondent / 1st defendant has also filed a counter stating that the issues can be adjudicated in the presence of the 3rd defendant, who is the legal heir of the petitioner / plaintiff and therefore, she is a proper and necessary party. The trial Court has entertained the application by holding that in order to decide the credibility and validity of the cancellation of the Settlement Deed and subsequent alienation and for effective adjudication, the petitioner is a proper and necessary party to the suit.
9. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has come to Court for specific cause of action alleging tresspass into the suit property, which according to the plaintiff is in possession of the plaintiff and the allegation of tresspass are only against defendants 1 and 2. It is not a suit for title where a roving enquiry with regard to execution of the Settlement Deed or revocation thereof will have to be elaborately tried and decided. In a suit for permanent injunction, the only issue that would arise for consideration is whether the plaintiff's claim of possession is found to be correct and allegations of tresspass are
