Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 47341
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. Balaji, J
Rajammal – Appellant
Versus
S.Chidambaram – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition 328 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy
For the Respondents: Mr.D.Lakshmipathy, Mr.D.Gopal, GA
Presence of non-necessary parties does not assist in adjudicating statutory notice challenges.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 1 Rule 10 - Petition challenging the order for impleadment of parties in a suit regarding encroachment - The petitioner contends that the impleaded parties are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit concerning statutory notices under the Land Encroachment Act. Court found that presence of the impleaded parties does not assist in adjudicating the main issues in the suit. (Paras 1, 3, 8)
(B) Role of Defendants - The court highlighted that even if the action was initiated by the complaint of defendants 5 and 6, it does not endow them with the right to be parties to an action contesting a statutory notice against the plaintiff. Court reaffirmed that the dispute is between the plaintiff and statutory authorities only. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petition was filed against a notice under the Land Encroachment Act, with defendants 5 and 6 claiming rights over the property. The trial court allowed their impleadment, which was contested by the plaintiff.
Findings of Court:
The court allowed the revision petition, emphasizing that defendants 5 and 6 were not necessary for adjudication of the issues before the court.
Issues: The main issue revolved around whether defendants 5 and 6 are necessary parties in the civil suit challenging a statutory notice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that mere complaints from defendants 5 and 6 do not warrant their presence as parties in a case solely addressing the legality of a statutory notice against the plaintiff. Defendants have independent recourse to pursue their claims.
Result: Civil Revision Petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to impleadment in encroachment suit. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on necessity of impleaded parties. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's reasoning on party necessity. (Para 7 , 8) |
ORDER
The revision petition has been filed challenging the order in I.A.No.183 of 2018 in O.S.No.222 of 2020 impleading the respondents 1 and 2 as party defendants in the suit subsequent to an application taken out under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC by the proposed parties namely defendants 5 and 6 since being impleaded as defendants 5 and 6. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the suit has been filed against the Government authorities challenging the Section 6 notice issued to the plaintiff under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act , 1905 and for consequential permanent injunction to restrain the defendants 1 to 4 from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, including dismantling the thatched house by force. In the said suit the defendants have filed a written statement contending that subsequent to the Section 6 notice, they are contemplating issuance of Section 7 notice, post which, suitable action would be taken. At that stage, an application to implead the defendants 5 and 6, came to be filed stating that only on the complaint of the defendants 5 and 6, even the Section 6 notice came to be issued.
3. It is also stated by the defendants 5 and 6 that they have right in the said property and they trace their title to one Parvathiammal who was allotted with the said property under a partition deed dated 14.11.1959. It is further contended by the defendants 5 and 6 that, in a portion of the south-north concrete road, the plaintiff has encroached by putting up a thatched shed, thereby, denying the only access available to the defendants 5 and 6. On such premise they have sought for impleadment. The trial Court has also accepted the case of the defendants 5 and 6 and allowed the impleading petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff has filed the above revision.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Marudhachalamurthy would state that the trial Court has not even rendered a finding as to whether the defendants 5 and 6 are proper and necessary parties, which should be decided in an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. He would further bring to my notice, the relief sought for in the suit and contend that the defendants 5 and 6 have absolutely no role to play. He therefore, prayed for allowing the Civil Revision petition and consequential dismissal of I.A.No.183 of 2018.
5. Per contra learned counsel for the defendants 5 and 6 would state that the defendants 5 and 6 have a right of usage in the said pathway. It is only at the behest of the defendants 5 and 6 that action came to be initiated against the plaintiff who has encroached the pathway. The learned counsel would therefore state that the defendants are proper and necessary parties to throw light on the encroachment made by the plaintiff.
6. Mr.D.Gopal, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 3 to 6 would state that the defendants 1 to 4 are diligently defending the suit and they have also clearly indicated in the written statement that due process of law has been initiated and being followed and action being taken effectively.
7. The only point that falls for consideration in this revision is whether the defendants 5 and 6 would be proper and necessary parties to adjudicate the issues that arise in O.S.No.222 of 2020. The relief that is sought for in the above suit is a relief of declaration that the Section 6 notice under the Land Encroachment Act is void and unenforceable. Even assuming the action was initiated only pursuant to the complaint of defendants 5 and 6, it would not clothe the defendants 5 and 6 with a right to be heard as necessary parties in the suit for declaration which is challenging a statutory notice that was issued to the plaintiff.
8. It is a matter purely between th
