Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Ms. Justice P.T. ASHA
K.MARISELVAM, S/O.KALIRAJAN, – Appellant
Versus
A.CHINTHAMANIAMMAL(DIED), – Respondent
CRP(MD)/706/2018
Where the plaintiff admits that the deceased defendant had no right to the suit property, there is no necessity to implead his legal representatives in the suit.
Headnote:
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ORDER 1, RULE 10 - IMPLEADING LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES - LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED DEFENDANT - ADMISSION BY PLAINTIFF - NO NECESSITY TO ISSUE SUMMONS
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a revision petition challenging the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar, in I.A.No.23 of 2018 in I.A.No.198 of 2016 in O.S.No.41 of 2012. The petitioners sought to implead the legal representatives of the 1st defendant, who had remained ex-parte in the final decree proceedings. The learned Subordinate Judge had rejected the memo filed by the petitioners to order batta to respondents 6 to 9, the legal representatives of the 1st defendant, on the ground that there was no necessity to issue summons to them.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the 1st plaintiff in the suit had clearly and categorically admitted in her counter-affidavit to the impleading application that the 1st defendant had no right to the 13th Item of suit property. The court held that considering the fact that the legal representatives of the 1st defendant claimed right only under him, the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar, on 01.02.2018 does not suffer from any infirmity.
Issues: Whether the legal representatives of the deceased defendant should be impleaded in the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the admission made by the 1st plaintiff in her counter-affidavit that the 1st defendant had no right to the 13th Item of suit property. The court held that since the legal representatives of the 1st defendant claimed right only under him, there was no necessity to issue summons to them.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and held that there shall be no order as to costs.
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.706 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.706 of 2018
and
C.M.P.(MD) Nos.3130 & 9727 of 2018
1.K.Mariselvam
2.Minor.K.Sakthivel
... Petitioners/Petitioners/
Expected Defendants 8 & 9
[Minor 2nd petitioner is represented by his
natural guardian and father Kalimuthu]
-vs-
A.Chinthamaniammal (Died)
1.A.Muthulakshmi
... 1st Respondent/2nd Respondent/
Petitioner/7th Defendant
2.Murugayee
3.Packiam
... Respondents 2 & 3/Respondents 3 & 4
/Respondents 1 & 2/Plaintiffs
4.M.Solaimalaithevar
5.S.Kannan
6.S.Thirupathi
7.S.Marieeswari
8.So.Chitradevi
... Respondents 4 to 8/Respondents 5 to 9/
Respondents 3 to 7/Defendants 1 to 5
Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India to set aside the order dated 01.02.2018, rejecting the memo
filed by the petitioners to issuance of summons to the respondents 6
to 9 in I.A.No.23 of 2018 in I.A.No.198 of 2016 in O.S.No.41 of 2012
on the file of the Sub Judge, Virudhunagar, and to direct the Sub
Judge, Virudhunagar to order notices to the respondents 6 to 9 in
I.A.No.23 of 2018 in I.A.No.198 of 2016 in O.S.No.41 of 2012.
For Petitioners
:
Mr.S.Micheal Heldon Kumar
For R1
:
Mr.M.Ashok Kumar
For RR2 to 4, 7 & 8
:
No appearance
1/3
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.706 of 2018
ORDER
(Heard through Video Conferencing)
The above revision is filed challenging the order, dated
01.02.2018, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar,
in I.A.No.23 of 2018 in I.A.No.198 of 2016 in O.S.No.41 of 2012.
2.By the impugned order, the learned Subordinate Judge,
Virudhunagar, had stated that there was no necessity to issue
summons to respondents 6 to 9 who have remained ex-parte in the
final decree proceedings and the memo filed by the revision
petitioners herein to order batta to respondents 6 to 9 was
rejected. Respondents 6 to 9 are the legal representatives of the
1st defendant. I.A.No.23 of 2018 had been filed for the following
relief:-
“Mfnt fdk; nfhh;l;lhh; mth;fs; fpUig bra;J ,Wjp epiy
jPh;g;ghiz kDtpy; kDjhuh;fis 8> 9 vjph;kDjhuh;fshf nrh;j;J cj;jputpl
ntz;oaJ kpft[k ; mtrpakhdjha[k ;. epahakhdjha[k ; ,Uf;fpd;wJ”
3.The 1st plaintiff in the suit, who is the 3rd respondent in the
impugned application, has clearly and categorically admitted in
paragraphs 2 and 3 of her counter affidavit to the impleading
application in I.A.No.23 of 2018 as follows:-
“2) ,Wjpepiy jPh;g;ghiz kD jgrpy; 13tJ mapl;lr; brhj;jhd rh;nt
vz;.799/3-y; mlq;fpa 0.51.5 bcwf;nlh; epyKk;. ,Wjpepiy jPh;g;ghiz
kD jgrpy; 14tJ mapl;l brhj;jhd rh;nt vz;.799/1-y; ml';fpa 0.07.5
bcwf;nlh; epyKk;. ntW rpy brhj;Jf;fSk; fle;j 20/07/1989-k; njjpa gjpt
[ bra;ag;gl;l fpiuag; gj;jpuj;jpd;go bghd;Dr;rhkpj; njth; kidtp yl;Rkp
vd;w ghg;ghj;jpak;khSf;F Rahh;$pjkha; ghj;jpag;gl;lJ vd;W brhy;ypa [s ;sJ
cz;ikbad;W xg;g [f ; bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ. yl;Rkp (v) ghg;ghj;jpak;khSf;Fg;
ghj;jpag;gl;l brhj;Jf;fis mtUila thhPRfs; mile;J mDgtpj;J
tUifapy; ,Wjpepiy jPh;g;ghiz kD jgrpy; 13tJ mapl;lr; brhj;jpida[k;.
ntW rpy brhj;Jf;fisa [k ; bghWj;J rptfhrpapy; ,Uf;Fk; rhj;Jhh; Tl;Lwt [
epy ts tq;fpapy; fle;j 22/02/1990-k; njjp mlkhdk; itj;J fld;
bjhif bgw;W mDgtpj;J te;jdh; vd;W brhy;ypa [s ;sJ gw;wp vdf;F vJtpk;
bjhpahJ. yl;Rkp (v) ghg;ghj;jpak;khs; fhyk; brd;w gpd;g [ mthpd; thhPRfs;
,Wjp epiy jPh;g;ghiz kD jgrpy; 13tJ mapl;lr; brhj;jpida[k; ntW gy
brhj;Jf;fisa [k ; bghWj;J rhpahd gpujpgpunah$dk; bgw;Wf; bfhz;L ghy;
tz;zk; gz;lhuk; Fkhuh; uh$khzpf;fk; vd;gtUf;F fle;j 28/06/2001-k;
njjpa gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;l fpiuag; gj;jpuj;jpd; go fpiuak; bra;J bfhLj;J
tpl;ldh; vd;Wk;. fpiuak; bgw;w fhyk; Kjy; fpiua brhj;Jf;fis nkw;go
uh$khzpf;fk; jd;Dila jdpg;gl;l brhj;Jf;fshf mDgtpj;J te;jhh; vd;Wk;
brhy;ypa [s ;s tptuq;fs; cz;ikbad;W xg;g [f ;bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ.
3) nkw;go uh$kh
