The Madras High Court dismissed Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 challenging a Trial Court order impleading two persons as defendants. The Court held that findings on status during impleadment are not final and are open to scrutiny during the trial.
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.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.03.2017
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
CRP(PD)(MD)Nos.1290 and 1291 of 2015 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 1 of 2015 P.Gurusamy ... Petitioner in both CRP/1st Respondent/Plaintiff
vs.
1)J.Ilangovan 2)K.Rengaraju ..Respondents 1&2/Petitioner/Proposed 7th and 8th Defendants in both CRP's 3)Jeyaram Naicker 4)The Commissioner, HR & CE, 119 Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. 5)The Executive Officer, Thiruthangal Karunellinathaswami Thirukoil, Thiruthangal, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District. 6)District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 7)The RDO Sivakasi. 8)The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Sachiapuram, Sivakasi. ... Respondents 3 to 8 in both CRP/Respondents/Defendants 1 to 6
Prayer in CRP.1290/15 : Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 04.12.2014 passed in I.A.No.470 of 2013 in O.S.No.198/2013 on the file of the District Munsif, Sivakasi.
Prayer in CRP.1291/15 : Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 04.12.2014 passed in I.A.Nos.473 of 2013 in I.A.No.468/2013 in O.S.No.198/2013 on the file of the District Munsif, Sivakasi.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugan For Respondents : Mr.K.Rajeshwaran
COMMON ORDER
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ These revision petitions have been filed by the plaintiff in the suit aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court allowing
2
the impleading petition filed by one J.Ilangovan and K.Rengaraju as defendants 7 and 8. The 1st petitioner in the impleading petition/J.Ilangovan is none other than the son of the 1st defendant Jeyaram Naicker.
2.The case of the petitioners in the impleading petition is that they are in possession of the suit property and therefore, they are necessary parties and it is also further claimed by J.Ilangovan that he is the Managing Trustee of Karunellinathaswami Thirukoil, Thaipoosam Mandagapadi Dharmam. This fact is denied and disputed by the plaintiff. The Court below took note of the fact that in the other suit filed by the Executive Officer of the HR & CE Department, Jeyaram Naicker and his son J.Ilangovan are defendants and therefore, no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff, if J.Ilangovan and K.Rengaraju are impleaded. On the said ground, the impleading petition was allowed.
3.The plaintiff is aggrieved by certain observation made by the Trial Court. For impleading these two persons, primarily, there is a serious contention regarding the status claimed by J.Ilangovan as Managing Trustee of the Mandagapadi Dharmam. Further, while his father Jeyaram Naicker is already a defendant in the present suit, there is no necessity to implead his son as well as the so-called lease-holder K.Rengaraju, when these facts are not proved.
4.It is true that the status of these two impleading parties been discussed by the Trial Court while allowing the application. However, it is not the end of the dispute regarding their status or character. It is always open to the plaintiff to question their status and their right to enjoy the suit property whatsoever. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the order passed by the Trial Court impleading J.Ilangovan and K.Rengaraju as defendants 7 and 8. However, any observation made by the Trial Court for allowing the impleading petition shall not stand in the way of the Trial Court while deciding the suit.
With this observation, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 1 of 2015 are closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(Records)
/True Copy/
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
The District Munsif,
Sivakasi.
+1 cc to Mr.K.RAJESHWARAN,ADVOCATE,SR NO.13347 MAS/PM-PN:15.03.2017:2P-3C
CRP(PD)(MD)Nos.1290 and 1291 of 2015 07.03.2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Court should interfere with the Trial Court's order allowing the impleadment of new parties as defendants in a suit.
Whether the status of impleaded parties as Managing Trustee or lease-holder justifies interference with the revision petition.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
P. Gurusamy
J. Ilangovan and K. Rengaraju
Jeyaram Naicker
Commissioner, HR & CE
Executive Officer, Thiruthangal Karunellinathaswami Thirukoil
District Collector, Virudhunagar
DR. J. Jayachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
