Impleadment requires the claimant to demonstrate a valid interest or title; without it, such parties lack standing in court.

ORDER

The plaintiffs in O.S.No.2422 of 2021 on the file of the XVI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, aggrieved by the order in I.A.No.3 of 2023, directing impleadment of the 1^st respondent herein as a defendant in the suit, are come up this Court by way of this revision.

2.I have heard Mr.VRaghavachari, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.Avinash Wadhwani, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Sesubalan Raja, learned counsel for M/s.ASN.Atthik Legal Solutions, counsel for the 1^st respondent.

3.Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would contend that in a suit is for declaration and recovery of possession against the 2^nd respondent herein, the 1^st respondent herein sought to implead himself and the Trial Court has erroneously entertained the said application, without application of mind to the specific facts and circumstances of the case. He would further state that even according to the 1^st respondent, he is not a registered owner of the suit property and he approached the Court only on the premise that he holds a valid Power of Attorney and that he was put in possession of the suit property and has the original documents and title in his custody.

4.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would further state that all these transactions, based on which the 1^st respondent claims to be impleaded, were all pending suit and therefore, the doctrine of lis pendens would squarely apply and the 1^st respondent was not required to be arrayed as defendant in the said suit. He would further state that the 1^st respondent is neither a proper nor necessary party and consequently, under Order I Rule 10 of CPC , the Court should not have added the 1^st respondent as a party defendant in the said suit. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would rely on the deposition of D.W.1, who is the 2^nd respondent's authorized representative in the said suit and also e-Courts status regarding the manner in which the proceedings have been protracted by the respondents. He would therefore pray for the revision being allowed.

5.Per contra, Mr.P.Sesubalan Raja, learned counsel for the contesting 1^st respondent would state that the 1^st respondent's father had paid the entire sale consideration and purchased the property from the 2^nd respondent. According to the learned counsel, the father of the 1^st respondent was put in possession of the suit property and even his legal heirs, post his demise, have been in possession of the suit property. The grievance of the 1^st respondent as ventilated by the learned counsel is that, the suit has been filed for recovery of possession and when the 1^st respondent is in possession, it is all the more reason that a fair opportunity was given to the 1^st respondent to defend the suit. He would also state that the father of the 1^st respondent died intestate and there was a partition amongst his family members and a suit for partition was also filed, in which final decree came to be passed in C.S.No.314 of 2019, in and whereby, the suit property has been allotted to the share of the 1^st respondent.

6.It is therefore contended by the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent that the 1^st respondent has to be arrayed as one of the defendants in the said suit. He also refers to a letter dated 30.06.2015 executed by Rev.Dr.Kurien Thomas, representing the 2^nd respondent, where the 1^st respondent's father has been put on notice about the suit before the High Court coming up for hearing on 01.07.2015 and in view of the fact that the property has been sold to the 1^st respondent's father, it was his duty to safeguard the property. The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent would therefore state that the 2^nd respondent would not protect the interest of the 1^st respondent and there is also likelihood of the 1^st respondent remaining casual about the suit, which would seriously prejudice the interest of the 1^st respondent. In this regard, he would invite my attention to the proof affidavit filed by D.W.1 in the