C.R.P.(PD).No.1087 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 17.12.2020

PRONOUNCED ON : 22.01.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

C.R.P.(PD).No.1087 of 2019

and

C.M.P.No.7126 of 2019

1.B.Sugendran

2.Rukumani

...Petitioners/Plaintiffs 1 & 3

.. Vs ..

1.Rajarathinam

... 1^st Respondent/Third party

2.S.M.H.Sheik Mohammed

... 2^nd Respondent/defendant

3.B.Kanchana @ Sridevi

4.M.Anuradha

...Respondents 3 & 4/

Plaintiffs 2 & 4

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India against the order and decreetal in I.A.No.736

of 2015 in O.S.No.85 of 2011 dated 25.01.2019 on the file of the

Subordinate Judge @ Poonamalle in allowing the application filed

under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and

thereby impleading the 1^st respondent as a party defendant to the

suit.

For Petitioners

: Mr.V.Raghavachari

For R1

: Mr.J.Srinivasa Mohan

for M/s.T.V.J.Associates

For R2

: Mr.Mohana Murali

For R3 & R4

: Not ready in Notice (No appearance)

1/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P.(PD).No.1087 of 2019

ORDER

(The case has been heard through video conference)

This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India against the order passed in I.A.No.736 of 2015 in O.S.No.85

of 2011, dated 25.01.2019, on the file of the learned Subordinate

Judge, Poonamalle.

2.The plaintiffs 1 and 3 in the suit in O.S.No.85 of 2011 are

the revision petitioners herein.

3.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as

per the ranking before the Trial Court viz., plaintiffs, defendant and

proposed parties.

4.The factual matrix of the case leading to filing of the above

revision petition are as under:

(a)The suit property relates to S.No.91 of an extent 1.53

acres in Nerkundram Village, Madurvoyal Taluk, Thiruvallur District.

(b)The plaintiffs have filed the above said suit in O.S.No.85 of

2011, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee, to

2/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P.(PD).No.1087 of 2019

challenge the compromise decree passed in O.S.No. 137 of 2010,

on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee, dated

15.09.2010, alleging that the same has been obtained by fraud and

hence, sought the declaration that the decree is null and void.

(c)The plaintiffs claim to be the owners of the suit property

and that they appointed the defendant as their power agent to take

care of the suit property. But as the defendant did not submit the

accounts and hand over the sale consideration of another property

in S.No.92, the plaintiffs cancelled the power deed in favour of the

defendant and executed a fresh power deed in favour of the 1^st

plaintiff.

(d)The defendant has filed suit in O.S.No.137 of 2010

challenging the cancellation of power deed. It is alleged that the 1^st

plaintiff as power agent of the other plaintiffs, without the consent

of the other plaintiffs, had entered into compromise with the

defendant by tampering the ages in the compromise.

(e)As per the pleading in the Interlocutory Application viz.,

I.A.No.736 of 2015, it averred that, at this stage the defendant

3/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P.(PD).No.1087 of 2019

entered into agreement of sale with the petitioner/proposed party in

December 2012.

(f)Subsequent to the compromise, a dispute arose between

the plaintiffs and the defendant and hence, the owners have filed

the present suit in O.S.No. 85 of 2011 for the relief as stated supra.

During the pendency of the above said suit in O.S.No. 85 of 2011,

the first respondent herein as a third party has filed an application

in I.A.No. 736 of 2015 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead

him as second defendant in the main suit. After filing the counter

and during the enquiry, on behalf of the respondents in the above

said I.A.No.736 of 2015, Exs.R1 to R8 have been marked and no