Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 13828
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. BALAJI, J
Ezhumalai – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner, Bahour Commune Panchayat, Bahour, Puducherry – Respondent
M.A.No.4 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.T.S.Baskaran
For the Respondents: Mr.V.Vasanthakumar, AGP (Puducherry)
The court establishes that a party not involved in pending litigation regarding encroachment can seek to be impleaded for fair consideration of their interests in ongoing civil proceedings.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: The petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Facts: The petitioner challenges the order dated 12.08.2024 passed by the Principal District Judge, Puducherry, declaring the petitioner as an encroacher. Findings: The court finds that the respondent should await the outcome of the pending civil suit O.S.No.1220 of 2011.
Issues: The court addresses whether the respondent should be allowed to join the suit proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes that it is just for the respondent to seek impleadment and ensure due process is followed in the ongoing suit.
Result: The impugned order is set aside and the respondent can seek impleadment within the specified time frame.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. discussion regarding respondent's status in the suit. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 2. court ruling to allow respondent’s impleadment. (Para 6 , 7) |
ORDER
Heard Mr.T.S.Baskaran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.V.Vasanth Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The petitioner challenges the order in M.A.No.4 of 2019, dated
12.08.2024, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Puducherry treating the petitioner as an encroacher and directing removal of encroachment. 3. It is the case of petitioner that petitioner is facing a civil suit in O.S.No.1220 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Puducherry where the petitioner as defendant has contended that the plaintiff alone has encroached and it is not the petitioner who has encroached. Further, a counter claim has also been filed. Admittedly, the said suit is pending and it is in the stage of trial.
4. The respondent herein namely the Commissioner, Bahour Commune Panchayat, Puducherry is not a party to the suit proceedings. Independently, the respondent has initiated proceedings treating the petitioner as an encroacher. This is in respect of the very same property that the suit is pending. In the light of the above, it would be just and proper that the respondent awaits any final decision in the suit pending in O.S.No.1220 of
2011.
5. Mr.Vasanthakumar, learned counsel for the respondent would however state that as the respondent is not a party to the said suit, they must also be given an audience, so that they can put forth their contention independently, especially, in the light of the allegation that the respondent is supporting the plaintiff in the said suit.
6. In the light of the above, I am inclined to allow the revision petition and set aside the order passed in M.A.No.4 of 2019 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Puducherry and accordingly the impugned order dated 12.08.2024 in M.A.No.4 of 2019 is set aside and this civil revision petition is allowed.
7. The respondent is permitted to seek impleadment in O.S.No.1220 of 2011, on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Puducherry and on such application being filed, after hearing the counsel for the plaintiff and recording the objections, if any, the said application shall be disposed of expeditiously within a period of four weeks from the date of the application being filed. Thereafter, the suit shall be disposed of and if necessary after permitting the newly impleaded party to file a written statement and give evidence in a time bound manner. The suit shall be disposed of by the end of November, 2026 and subject to the decision of the suit, it shall be open to the respondent to initiate action against the encroachers. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. No costs.
