The necessity of a party's involvement for effective court adjudication, emphasizing simultaneous consideration of intersecting claims.

ORDER

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner filed an impleading petition under Order I Rule 10(2) to implead himself as proposed third defendant and I.A.No.243 of 2024 in O.S.No.369 of 2022 and the same was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner is not a necessary party. Challenging the same, the present revision petition has been filed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for the relief of permanent injunction alleging that the first respondent entered various sale agreements and agreed to purchase the property from the second respondent and he paid advance amount approximately a sum of Rs.4,00,00,000/- not only in respect of this property and including various properties and the possession was handed over immediately based on the sale agreement. The claim was made by the first respondent in the suit schedule property on the basis of the agreement entered in between them and thereby filed suit for bare injunction and obtained injunction. When the suit is pending before the very same Court, the second respondent entered the sale agreement with the petitioner on 06.01.2023 and the same was not honoured by the second respondent. Thereby, the petitioner filed the suit in O.S.No.79 of 2025 for specific performance on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Palani, Dindigul District(very same court) and the same is pending. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that the first respondent already filed a suit as against the second respondent for injunction with leave of the Court to file a suit for specific performance under Order II Rule 2 and the same was ordered in favour of him. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the suit is pending in between them and hence the petitioner wants to implead him as a party in the suit filed under Order I Rule 10(2) and the same was dismissed simply on the ground that the petitioner is not necessary party.

3. In the suit filed by the 1^st respondent, the petitioner is not a party which is pending. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner is not necessary party in the suit filed by the 1^st respondent, the petitioner filed subsequent suit with regard to the agreement entered between him and the second respondent. Hence by impleading himself in the suit filed by the first respondent, no prejudice would cause either to the first respondent or to the second respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that this Court may direct the trial Court to dispose the suits simultaneously. Accordingly he prayed for appropriate orders.

4. The learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff submitted that admittedly, the petitioner is not necessary party or proper party. There was an agreement prior to the petitioner. Knowing very well, the injunction granted by the trial Court, the petitioner entered into the sale agreement with the second respondent which is not binding on the first respondent since the first respondent already entered the sale agreement and took over possession for which the trial Court granted injunction and hence the petitioner neither coming as necessary party or proper party and his presence is not required for effective disposal of the suit. The effective adjudication is only in between the first respondent and the second respondent and not to the petitioner. To support his argument, the learned counsel for the first respondent relied on the judgment reported in 2010 (7) SCC 417, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of this revision petition. HE further submitted that at the fag end of the civi