IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04-12-2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL CRP. No. 2911 of 2022 and CMP. Nos.15815 & 18188 of 2022

1. Rathinavel Vellala Street, Ariyalur Taluk, Ariyalur District.

2. Kalyani Vellala Street, Ariyalur Taluk, Ariyalur District. ...Petitioners/Petitioners 3 &4/

Plaintiffs 3 & 4 Versus

1. Sathu @ Santhappan Vellala Street, Ariyalur Taluk & District. ...1st Respondent/ 2^nd Petitioner/

2nd Plaintiff

2. Elangovan Sambasivam Pillai Street, Ariyalur Taluk & District.

Govindaraju (Died)

3. Junior Engineer (O& M)

Tamilnadu Electricity Board, …Respondents 2 & 3/ Ariyalur. Respondents 1 to 3 / Defendants 4. Anbalagan Servaikkara Street, Ariyalur Taluk & District.

5. Boopathy Servaikkara Street, Ariyalur Taluk & District.

6. Jeeva Rajaji Nagar, Ariyalur Taluk & District.

7. Rani Reddiyarkulam Vadakarai Kumbakonam Thanjavur District.

8. Pandian Servaikkara Street, Ariyalur Taluk & District.

9. Stalin Servaikkara Street, ...Respondents 4 to 9 / Respondents 4 to 9/

Ariyalur Taluk & District. Proposed Defendants 4 to 9 PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated July 15, 2022 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2020 in O.S.No.214 of 2012 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Ariyalur. For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Navaneetha Krishan for Mr.S.Kamadevan For Respondent(s) : R1, R3 to R9- Served- No Appearance R2 - Dismissed vide order of this Court dated November 20, 2025.

ORDER

Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal order passed by “the learned Additional District Munsif, Ariyalur” (“Trial Court” for convenience) in the Interlocutory Application filed under Order XXII Rule 4 read with Section 151 of “the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908” (“CPC” for short) in I.A. No.3 of 2020 in O.S. No.214 of 2012 on July 15, 2022, the petitioners 3 & 4 therein have filed this Civil Revision Petition.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

3. The Suit in O.S.No.214 of 2012 was originally filed seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession of the suit property and not to evict them. The defendants l and 3 entered appearance and filed their written statements. According to the plaintiffs, they are the tenants under the second defendant namely Govindaraju by virtue of a lease deed and the plaintiffs were accordingly paying monthly rents; that the first defendant without any valid title or right over the suit property, is taking steps to evict the plaintiffs and further, in collusion with the third defendant trying to cut down the electricity connections laid in the suit property.

4. During the pendency of the Suit, the second defendant passed away on January 24, 2020 leaving behind the proposed defendants 4 to 9 as his legal heirs. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed an Interlocutory Application under Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC, praying to implead the respondents 4 to 9 as defendants 4 to 9 in the Suit. After hearing both sides, the Trial Court dismissed the Interlocutory Application on the ground that the respondents 4 to 9 are not necessary parties as the second respondent did not possess a valid title. Feeling aggrieved over the same, the petitioners 3 & 4 therein are before this Court by way of this revision petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, 1950.

5. Mr.Navaneetha Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submits that the plaintiffs filed the Suit seeking injunction against the defendants not to evict the plaintiffs without following the due process of law. The learned counsel further submits that during the pendency of the Suit, the second defendant namely Govindaraju passed away on January 24, 2020 leaving behind the respondent 4 to 9. The plaintiffs filed a petition under Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC praying to implead respondents 4 to 9 a