Allowed

Ponnumony v. Hentry

Madras HC11 Oct 2011CRP(MD)/1929/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a civil revision petition, modifying a lower court order regarding an impleader application. The petitioner sought to modify the order so the applicant is impleaded only in the final decree petition since rights were already determined in the preliminary decree of the original partition suit.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; order modified to implead petitioner only in Interlocutory Application No.564 of 2009.

Ponnumony Vs Hentry — Partition | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.10.2011

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION(NPD)(MD) No.1929 of 2011

¶5

and

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011

¶7

Ponnumony .. Petitioner/2^nd Respondent/2^nd Plaintiff

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.Hentry .. Respondent/Petitioner/3^rd Party 2.Lekshmi @ Santhi

3.Muthamma

4.Devaraj

5.Chinnayyan

6.Kunjaram

7.Kamalammal

8.Raju

9.Laila 10.Vijayakumari

11.Russel Raj

12.Selvaraj

13.Nadarajan

14.Moni @ Johnson

15.Ravi

16.Lawrence

.. Respondents/Respondents 3 to 17/ Defendants

¶24

Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the fair and decretal order dated 09.08.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.396 of 2011 in Original Suit No.496 of 1987 by the First Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai.

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sreekumaran Nair

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The order dated 09.08.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.396 of 2011 in Original Suit No.496 of 1987 by the First Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai is being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶28

The revision petitioner and another as plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit No.496 of 1987 on the file of the Court below for the reliefs of partition and separate possession of their half share, wherein a preliminary decree has been passed. In pursuance of the same, an application has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.564 of 2009 for passing final decree. During pendency of the same, the first respondent herein as petitioner has filed Interlocutory Application No.396 of 2011 under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to implead him as one of the respondents in final decree petition as well as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ one of the defendants in Original Suit No.496 of 1987. The Court below after considering the contentions putforth on either side has allowed the

¶29

¶30

petition filed in Interlocutory Application No.396 of 2011. Against the order passed by the Court below, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed at the instance of the petitioner in Interlocutory Application No.564 of 2009/second plaintiff in Original Suit No.496 of 1987.

¶31

Considering the nature of the reliefs sought for in Original Suit

¶32

No.496 of 1987 as well as the nature of preliminary decree passed therein and also considering the nature of the reliefs sought for in Interlocutory Application No.396 of 2011 and the order passed therein, notice need not be sent to the respondents and this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission on the basis of the contention putforth on the side of the revision petitioner.

¶33

It is seen from the records that the revision petitioner and another as plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit No.496 of 1987 on the file of the Court below for the reliefs of partition and separate possession of their half share, wherein the respondents 2 to 16 have been shown as defendants. In Original Suit No.496 of 1987, a preliminary decree has been passed, wherein it has been specifically stated that the second plaintiff is entitled to get half share in all the suit properties. In pursuance of the same, the second plaintiff as petitioner has filed Interlocutory Application No.564 of 2009 for the purpose of passing a final decree. During pendency of the same, the petition in question has been filed by the first respondent herein in Interlocutory Application No.396 of 2011 so as to implead him in final decree petition as well as in the suit. The Court below has allowed the same as prayed for.

¶34

The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that in Original Suit No.496 of 1987 already a preliminary decree has been passed and in pursuance of the same for passing a final decree Interlocutory Application No.564 of 2009 has been filed and the same is pending and during pendency of the same, the present petition has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.396 of 2011, but the petitioner therein has erroneously prayed to implead him as one of the defendants in Original Suit No.496 of 1987 and at the most he can be impleaded in Interlocutory Application No.564 of 2009, since he claims that he purchased some items of suit properties from the second respondent herein and therefore the order passed by the Court below is liable to be modified.

¶35

As expounded earlier, Original Suit No.496 of 1987 has been filed for getting the reliefs of partition and separate possession, wherein a preliminary decree has been passed and in pursuance of the same, the revision petitioner as petitioner has filed Interlocutory Application No.564 of 2009 for passing a final decree. During pendency of the same, the petition in question has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.396 of 2011. In Interlocutory Application No.396 of 2011, it has been stated that the petitioner therein has purchased some items of suit properties from the second respondent. Considering the fact that already the rights of the parties have been determined and also considering that for passing final decree Interlocutory Application No.564 of 2009 is pending as rightly pointed out on the side of the revision petitioner, the petitioner in Interlocutory Application No.396 of 2011 can be impleaded only in Interlocutory Application No.564 of 2009. But the Court below without https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ considering the stage of Original Suit No.496 of 1987 has erroneously allowed the petition as prayed for and therefore the order passed by the

¶36

¶37

Court below is liable to be modified as stated infra.

¶38

In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed without costs at the stage of admission and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.396 of 2011 in Original Suit No.496 of 1987 by the First Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai is modified as follows:

¶39

The petition filed in Interlocutory Application No.396 of 2011 is allowed in part without costs and the petitioner therein is impleaded as one of the respondents only in Interlocutory Application No.564 of 2009. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

Assistant Registrar(AS)

¶42

/True copy/

¶43

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶44

¶45

The First Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai.

¶46

smn

¶47

C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1929 of 2011

¶48

and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 11.10.2011

¶49

TR : 28.10.2011 : 3P/2C

¶50

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Ponnumony v. Hentry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ponnumony v. Hentry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tamil Nadu State Transport Vs Settukumar

Sabruhan Beevi Vs Tamilnadu Ashpestos and Cement

Alagar, S/O.Mari, Vs Chellachamy, S/O.Ponnuthevar

Radhakrishnan Vs Muthuselvi, F/25

Gandhimathi Vs R.George S/O.D.M.Raja

C.Petchikumar Vs S.Chandra @ Jeyalakshmi