Dismissed

Kannan v. Amirtha

Madras HC24 Oct 2017CRP/3715/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A civil revision petition was filed challenging the dismissal of an application to implead the District Collector and Tahsildar as necessary parties in a suit for permanent injunction. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding the application was filed belatedly during evidence cross-examination and that the Revenue officials were not necessary parties.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Kannan Vs Amirtha — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 24.10.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

CRP (PD) No. 3715 of 2017
and
C.M.P.No. 17243 of 2017
Kannan .. Petitioner
Vs
1. Amirtha
2. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by District Collector,
Sathuvachari,
Vellore District.
3. The Tasildar,
Gudiyattam,
Gudiyattam Taluk,
Vellore District. .. Respondents

¶7

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as against the Order and Decreetal Order in I.A.No.467 of 2016 in O.S.No. 306 of 2009 dated 14.02.2017, on the file of the District Munsif Court at Gudiyattam, Vellore District.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr. P.Vasanth

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶10

¶11

This Civil Revision Petition arises against the order in I.A.No.467 of 2016 in O.S.No. 306 of 2009 dated 14.02.2017, passed by the District Munsif, Gudiyattam, Vellore District.

¶12

The 1^st respondent herein filed a suit in O.S. No.306 of 2009 seeking for permanent injunction. When the matter was taken up for trial, the petitioner filed an application in I.A. No.467 of 2016, under Order 1 Rule 10(2) & Section 151 of C.P.C., to implead the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents herein, viz., the District Collector, Vellore and the Tahsildar, Gudiyatham Taluk, as parties to the suit. Counter affidavit was filed by the defendant/first respondent before the court below. After considering the contention of both the parties, the Court below has dismissed the said application, by holding that the said application has been filed belatedly, after concluding the evidence of the plaintiff and while the same is posted for cross examination of the defendant's side evidence. Challenging, the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition before this Court.

¶13

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶14

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents 2 and 3 are necessary parties in the said suit. The dispute is regarding the patta granted in favour of the plaintiff. When there is a dispute in the patta, they are necessary parties in the suit. Without considering the said fact, the court below has erroneously dismissed the

¶16

application.

¶17

From the above facts, it is found that the 1^st respondent has filed the suit in O.S.No.306 of 2009 for permanent injunction and it is clear that the dispute is only regarding the possession of the suit property. The suit was filed in the year 2009, the issues have been framed, the evidence on the plaintiff side was concluded and the case has been posted for cross examination of the defendant side witnesses. At this stage, the said application to implead, under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C. has been filed. The petitioner has not given any reasons for the belated application, to implead the proposed respondents in the suit. Hence, the Court below has rightly held that the present suit is only for injunction and not for declaration and therefore the proposed defendants/ 2^nd and 3^rd respondents herein are not necessary parties in

¶18

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶19

¶20

the suit. Hence, there is no error or illegality in the order passed by the

¶21

court below, to be interfered by this Court. It is for the parties concerned to establish before the Court below, for the relief in the said

¶22

suit.

¶23

In view of the above, the Civil Revision Petition fails and
the same is dismissed. Consequently the connected miscellaneous
petition is closed. No costs.
24.10.2017
Index: Yes/No
Speaking order/ Non speaking order
avr/ msvm
To
The District Munsif Court,
Gudiyattam,
Vellore District.

¶24

http://www.judis.nic.in

D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.

avr

CRP (PD) No. 3715 of 2017
and
C.M.P.No. 17243 of 2017
24.10.2017

¶29

http://www.judis.nic.in

Kannan v. Amirtha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kannan v. Amirtha

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

Kunjarammal Vs Kandasamy

M. Sundari Vs K. Ashok Kumar

Vijayabalan Vs Murugaiyan

Pachaiammal Vs the Executive Office

G. Perumal Vs Pushpa

B.Jafferulla Khan Vs B.Ayaz Khan