Allowed

Seetharaman v. Kumar @ Krishna Iyer

Madras HC3 Apr 2014CRP/739/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court intervened under Article 226 to reverse a District Munsif's order allowing impleadment of new defendants 8 years after suit inception. The reversal was based on the failure to disclose co-poojaries in the original plaint and the view that the claim was legally barred by delay and non-joinder in the original pleadings. No statutory provision was cited.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; impugned order setting aside; impleadment application dismissed; main suit to be disposed of within six months.

Seetharaman Vs Kumar @ Krishna Iyer — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.04.2014 CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.KARUPPIAH

¶5

C.R.P(PD).No.739 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009

¶6

1.Seetharaman 2.Murali ... Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.Kumar @ Krishna Iyer

¶9

2.Krishnan

¶10

3.Siddhan

¶11

(R2 & R3 given up as unnecessary

¶12

parties) ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order dated 01.09.2009 made in I.A.No.70 of 2008 in O.S.No.121 of 2000, on the file of the District Munsif, Mettur.

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr.T.Murugamanickam

¶15

For Respondent-1 : Mr.P.Mani

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The revision petitioners who are the defendants 1 and 2 in the Original Suit filed this Civil Revision Petition to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.70 of 2008 in O.S.No.121 of 2000, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mettur.

¶18

2.Heard Mr.T.Murugamanickam, learned counsel appearing for

¶19

¶20

the revision petitioners as well as Mr.P.Mani, learned counsell appearing for the first respondent.

¶21

3.The first respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.121 of 2000 seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioners and also respondents 2 and 3/defendants in the suit from interfering with the first respondent/plaintiff's performing the pooja in the suit temple. In the above said suit, the revision petitioners and third respondent herein filed written statement and the suit is pending for trial.

¶22

4.The first respondent/plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.70 of 2008 to implead four persons namely, 1)Kannaiyar 2)Senthil Kumar 3)Radhakrishnan and 4)Venkatesan as defendants 5 to 8 in the Original Suit. In the said affidavit, it is stated that in the suit temple, six family members are hereditary poojaries and they are performing poojas and without adding the above said poojaries, the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. To avoid the above said technicality, prayed for impleading the above said four proposed parties as defendants 5 to 8 in the Original Suit.

¶23

¶24

5.The revision petitioners/defendants 1 & 2 filed a detailed

¶25

counter and in which it is stated that the first respondent/plaintiff has come forward with the suit for permanent injunction by stating that he is entitled to pooja right as per the settlement deed. But according to the revision petitioners and respondents 2 & 3 herein, pooja right cannot be alienated to anybody and further, the proposed parties are no way connected with the cause of action of the present suit. The suit was filed in the year 2000 whereas in the application to implead the proposed parties was filed in the year 2008 and the application is filed only to drag on the proceedings and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the above said application with exemplary costs.

¶26

6.The trial Court has discussed about the affidavit and counter and finally allowed the said application filed by the first respondent/plaintiff. Aggrieved over the above said findings of the trial Court, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the revision petitioners/defendants 1 & 2.

¶27

7.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/defendants 1 & 2 submitted that the first

¶28

¶29

respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit by stating that first respondent/plaintiff alone is the poojari in the suit temple since the revision petitioners and respondents 3 and 4 interfered with the above said rights of the first respondent, he filed the suit for permanent injunction against them. But after eight years, the first respondent/plaintiff has filed an application to implead four other persons as if they are also poojaries of the above said temple and therefore, the application is not at all maintainable since no cause of action is against the above said newly impleaded parties and the suit is only for permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioners and respondents 2 and 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners further submitted that trial Court in its order has stated that six family members are poojaries in the suit temple whereas the first respondent/plaintiff filed the application to implead only four persons out of of six poojaries and inspite of it, the trial Court has allowed the above application to implead the said four persons and therefore, the said findings of the trial Court are perverse and also illegal.

¶30

8.The learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff would submit that proposed parties of the suit temple are impleaded only

¶31

¶32

to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings and also on the ground they

¶33

are necessary parties and therefore, the trial Court has rightly considered and passed order and hence, there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the trial Court.

¶34

9.Admittedly, the first respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit against the revision petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 seeking the relief of permanent injunction not to interfere with his pooja right in the suit temple. But in the plaint nowhere it is stated that in the above said temple, there are six family members are hereditary poojaries. Moreover, the suit was filed in the year 2000 but the application to implead four persons was filed only after eight years. Further the averments made in the affidavit filed in this application are completely contradictory with the pleadings in the original plaint. Therefore, it is a new plea as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners. Further, the first respondent/plaintiff himself has stated that six families are poojaries in the said temple but however filed the application to implead only four persons and not impleaded other two families. No reasons have been given for not impleading the other two persons. Inspite of the same, the trial Court has wrongly allowed the above

¶35

¶36

said application and therefore, the findings of the trial court is not valid in law, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and therefore, the order passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside.

¶37

10.In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the fair and decretal order passed by the District Munsif, Mettur in I.A.No.70 of 2008 in O.S.No.121 of 2000 dated 01.09.2009 is hereby set aside and dismissed the application. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the main suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No order as to costs.

¶38

03.04.2014

¶39

Index :Yes Internet :Yes

¶40

¶41

¶42

The District Munsif Court, Mettur.

R.KARUPPIAH.J,

C.R.P(PD).No.739 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009

¶47

03.04.2014

Seetharaman v. Kumar @ Krishna Iyer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seetharaman v. Kumar @ Krishna Iyer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Marry Susheela Vs Shalee Kasthuribai

The Land Acquisition Officer Vs S.Venkatesan

Palaniammal Vs Kumarrakkal

Mahalakshmi Vs Noorinisha Begum

Arulmighu Aathimooleswarar Vs Gurumoorthy

Kasi Ammal Vs S.v.Natesa Thevar