High Court dismissed a civil revision petition. The petitioner challenged the lower court’s order allowing impleadment of society officials in a suit for injunction. The Court held the impleadment was proper and necessary for final adjudication.
Civil Revision Petition and connected Miscellaneous Petition dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22/01/2015 CORAM
THE HON`BLE MRS JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
CRP PD(MD)No.1605 of 2013 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2013
V.SUNDARAMOORTHY, ... REVISION PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF/1ST RESPONDENT
1 RAMAN,
2 INSPECTOR GENERAL, REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI.
3 DISTRICT REGISTRAR, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANT
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 11.07.2013 made in I.A.No.50 of 2013 in O.S.No.32 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Paramakudi.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Siva Thilakar
For Respondents : Mr.A.Arumugam
for M/s.Ajmal Associates for R1
No Appearance for RR2 and 3
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the District Munsif Court, Paramakudi. allowing the petition to implead the proposed parties to the suit.
2.The suit is filed for a mandatory injunction, directing the first and second defendants to take action against the former incumbents of Paramakudy Vaniyar Uravin Muraiyarkalin Pothu Sabai whose activities are against the provision of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act.
3.The first respondent herein, who is the third defendant had filed an application to implead the fourth and fifth defendants, who are the proposed parties. The proposed parties are Paramakudy Vaniyar Uravin Muraiyarkalin Pothu Sabai, represented by the president and the fifth proposed party is the Secretary.
4.It is contended by the learned counsel for the first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent, who has taken out the application for impleadment that when the action is sought for against the officials of Sabai, it is necessary
that Sabai is also represented in the suit. Therefore, any action that may be taken against the office bearers of Sabai should be made in the presence of Sabai.
5.The trial court, allowed the application, as the proposed parties are proper and necessary parties and their presence is necessary for final adjudication. No doubt, no relief was sought against them, but the relief is fo a direction to take action against the office bearers of the Sabai. Therefore, I see no irregularity in the order passed by the learned District Munsif in allowing the impleading petition.
6.In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(T & P)
\True copy\
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
+1 CC TO M/S.S.SIVA THILAKAR, ADVOCATE SR.NO.2947
CRP PD(MD)No.1605 of 2013 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2013 DATED : 22/01/2015
MVS
NA/03/02/2015/P2/3C
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the District Munsif Court erred in allowing an application to implead proposed parties in a suit seeking injunction against society officials.
Whether the impleadment of the society is necessary when relief is sought against its office bearers.
Whether the impugned order of the District Munsif Court suffers from any irregularity justifying revision under Article 227.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
V. Sundaramoorthy
Raman
Inspector General, Registration Department, Chennai
District Registrar, Sivagangai District
Pushpa Sathyanarayana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
