Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 40879
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V. Thamilselvi, J
Rathinasamy – Appellant
Versus
Chinnasamy – Respondent
CMP No.5660 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K. Govi Ganesan
For the Respondents: M/s.G.Nirmal Krishnan
Impleadment of a party is permissible if it does not change the nature of the suit and ensures complete adjudication of rights over the suit property.
Headnote:The revision petitioner filed an application to implead his son as a party to the suit, which was dismissed by the trial court. The High Court considered the provisions of civil procedure governing impleadment of parties. The court held that impleading the son based on a settlement deed would not alter the suit's character and would not prejudice the defendant. The court framed the issue as whether the proposed party was a necessary party for effective adjudication. The court held that once the settlement deed was executed, impleadment becomes necessary to ensure complete and final adjudication of rights in respect of the suit property. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside and the civil revision petition was allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against order rejecting impleadment application (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. applicant's submission on settlement deed and necessary party (Para 3) |
| 3. court's analysis on proper adjudication without prejudice (Para 5) |
| 4. final order allowing revision and setting aside lower court order (Para 6) |
ORDER
Challenging the order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No.10 of 2025, the revision petitioners filed the present revision.
2. Before the trial Court, the revision petitioner has filed an application in I.A.No.2 of 2025 seeking to implead one Dinesh Kumar, who is the son of the revision petitioner, as second defendant in the suit proceedings. The said application was dismissed by the trial court holding that if at all the said Dinesh Kumar is having any right and title over the property, the revision petitioner has to work out his remedy by separate suit and not in the present suit. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that after the suit, the revision petitioner has executed a settlement deed in favour of his son Dinesh Kumar and therefore he wanted to implead him as necessary party to the proceedings. Further, there is a counter claim to decide the issue as to whether the said Dinesh Kumar is a necessary party.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent.
5. Admittedly, after the suit, based on the settlement deed, now , the revision petitioner seeks to implead Dinesh Kumar as second defendant. The dispute is with regard to the immovable property as shown in the plaint schedule and various items are shown as immovable property and the suit was originally filed by the respondent for the reliefs of permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs. Pending suit, counter claim arose between the parties. Therefore, by impleading Dinesh Kumar as 2nd defendant would not cause any prejudice nor would it change the character of the suit.
6. Therefore, the order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2025 is set aside and the civil revision petition is allowed. The parties are directed to cooperate for trial.
