Dismissed

C. Govindasamy v. Logic Energy Pvt. Ltd.

Madras HC17 Aug 2017CRP/2732/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 challenging the dismissal of an impleading petition. The Court held that government officials who caused mutation are not necessary parties since the transaction is subject to the main suit, so the impugned order is sustained.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed. No costs. Connected civil miscellaneous petition closed.

C. Govindasamy Vs Logic Energy Pvt. Ltd. — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 17.08.2017

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. GOVINDARAJ

¶6

C.R.P.(PD) NO.2732 OF 2017
AND CMP NO.12972 OF 2017
1.C.Govindasamy
2.Reena
3.Suryaprakash
4.Minor Ajay Agarwal ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.Logic Energy India Pvt. Ltd.,
Door No.47/15, K.Pakadpattu Village & Post
Karumanthurai Via., Chinnakalrayan,
Therkukadu, Attur Taluk, Salem District.
Rep. by its Executive Officer Marc Devaraj
2.P.Kumar
3.K.Paramasivam
4.Sivaprakasam
5.State Bank of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by District Collector
Salem.
6.The Tahsildar
Pethanaickenpalayam, Salem District.
7.The V.A.O.,
Thennampillaiyur, Attur,
Salem District. ... Respondents

¶7

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶8

¶9

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 09.12.2016 passed in I.A.No.483 of 2016 in O.S.No.25 of 2012 on the file of Subordinate Court, Attur.

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Jagadeesan

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order

¶13

dismissing the impleading petition filed by the petitioners / plaintiffs.

¶14

The plaintiffs are the revision petitioners. The grievance of

¶15

the petitioners / plaintiffs is that during the pendency of the suit, the proposed respondents / respondent nos.5 to 7 herein, have caused mutation in the revenue records based on a sale deed dated 06.01.2012.

¶16

From the perusal of the records, it is seen that the

¶17

proposed respondents / respondent nos.5 to 7 herein, are Government officials. They have caused transfer of the revenue records pertaining to the sale deed registered in favour of the contesting respondents, which is the official duty on the part of the proposed respondents. If at all there is any grievance, the petitioners are entitled to take proper steps to redress

¶18

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶19

¶20

the same. There is a separate avenue open to redress their grievances and

¶21

any transaction will be subject to the result of the suit. While this being
so, the official respondents, against whom the relief is sought for, are
neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. The Trial Court has
rightly dismissed the petition holding that their presence is not necessary
to decide the issues in the suit. The Civil Revision Petition does not
require any interference.
4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
17.08.2017
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
TK
To
The Subordinate Court
Attur.

¶22

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶23

¶24

M.GOVINDARAJ, J. TK

¶25

C.R.P.(PD) NO.2732 OF 2017

¶26

17.08.2017

¶27

http://www.judis.nic.in

C. Govindasamy v. Logic Energy Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C. Govindasamy v. Logic Energy Pvt. Ltd.

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

Jeevagan Vs Shanmugam

Gnanamoorthy Vs Asokan

Jayaraman Vs M/S Shriram City Union Finance

Pappathi Vs Dinesh Kumar

Kotieeswari(Deceased) Vs v. Kalaivanan

M/S. Manish Creations Vs M/S. Karikali Amman Spinning