Dismissed

Mr.P.Rajendran v. R.a.Subramanian

Madras HC10 Mar 2017CRP(MD)/482/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a Civil Revision Petition challenging the trial court's allowance of an impleading application. The revision petitioner argued the application was filed belatedly as a delay tactic. The High Court found unexplained delay but noted no prejudice as the petitioner admitted necessity. The High Court directed the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously and dismissed the revision.

What did the court decide?

Trial court directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously after giving opportunity to new parties.

Mr.P.Rajendran Vs R.a.Subramanian — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 10.03.2017

¶4

Coram:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

CRP(MD)(PD)NO.482 of 2017 and C.M.P.(MD) No.2308 of 2017

¶7

P.Rajendran .. Petitioner/1^st Respondent/1^st Defendant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

R.A.Subramanian .. 1^st Respondent/Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶10

Sakthivelusamy 3. Durairaj .. Respondents 2&3 /Respondents 2&3/Proposed Defendants 2&3

¶11

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to pass an order setting aside the order dated 14.12.2016 passed in I.A.No.534 of 2016 in O.S.No.321 of 2009 by District Munsif Court, Palani.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.Anand Chandrasekar

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This is a Revision Petition filed against the impleading petition allowed by the trial court.

¶15

2.The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that this application was taken out belatedly, when the matter was posted for trial and delay tactics adopted by the plaintiff. The learned counsel pointed out that the written statement filed in the year 2010. It was pointed out that one Mr.Durai Raj is a necessary party to the suit and non impleading Mr.Durai Raj is bad for non joinder of necessary party. When this matter was brought to the notice of the plaintiff as early as in 2010, the present application to implead Mr.Durairaj and his son Sakthi Velusamy was filed belatedly after six years with an ulterior motive to protract the proceedings and therefore, the application ought not to have allowed by the trial Court. Since the trial Court has failed to appreciate the real intention of the plaintiff, the order passed by the trial Court in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ I.A.No.534 of 2016 are to be set aside.

¶16

¶17

3.Having gone through the proceedings and the impugned order, this Court finds that it was the defendant in his written statement, has taken a plea that Durai Raj is a necessary party to the proceedings. No doubt, there is unexplained delay in taking out the application to bring Durai Raj and his son as parties defendants for complete adjudication. No prejudice would be caused to the revision petitioner, if these two parties are impleaded as respondents, since the revision petitioner himself has indicated that one of them is a necessary party to the proceedings. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the proposed parties, who are now impleaded as defendants did not appear before the Court in the impleading application and they were set exparte.

¶18

4.Taking note of this fact, this Court direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously, after giving opportunity to the new impleaded parties to put forth the case, if any, within the time framed under C.P.C. and proceed further without any delay.

¶19

5.Accordingly this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

¶22

The District Munsif, Palani.

¶23

+1cc to Mr.Anand Chandrasekar, Advocate SR.No.13989

¶24

Arul/ls

¶25

sm:PM-PN:20/03/2017:2P/3C

¶26

CRP(MD)(PD)NO.482 of 2017 and C.M.P.(MD) No.2308 of 2017 10.03.2017

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Mr.P.Rajendran v. R.a.Subramanian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.P.Rajendran v. R.a.Subramanian

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

Thiyagarajan, Vs State through the

Alagar Vs the Inspector of Police

Sankaran @ Christopher Vs the Inspector of Police

Esakki Raja Vs the Inspector of Police

Jothi Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

T.Thangapushpam, Vs Anthoniammal