Dismissed

V.Ramasamy v. Thirumutrhy

Madras HC12 Jan 2018CRP/3863/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a Civil Revision Petition under Article 226, dismissed the challenge to the District Munsif Court's order allowing a third party to be impleaded. The Court affirmed that the impleaded respondent was a necessary party for the proper adjudication of a property suit.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

V.Ramasamy Vs Thirumutrhy — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 12.01.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

CRP No.3863 of 2007

and M.P.No.1 of 2007

V.Ramasamy

Rep. by power Agent A.Haniba ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Thirumurthy
2.Palanisamy (Deceased)
3.Muthulakshmi
4.Gnanakumar ... Respondents

¶9

RR 3 & 4 brought on record as LR's of the deceased 2^nd respondent viz. Palanisamy vide Order of this Court dated 02.11.2017

¶10

made in M.P.No.3 of 2015 in CRP.No.3863 of 2007

¶11

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.339 of 2006 in O.S.No.479 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Udumalpet dated 25.04.2007.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Mouli

¶13

For Respondents : NA

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 25.04.2007, passed by the District Munsif Court, Udumalpet in I.A.No.339 of 2006 in O.S.No.479 of 2005. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit and the respondents are the defendants. I.A.No.339 of 2006 was filed by a third party, who is the first respondent, in this Civil Revision Petition, seeking to implead himself as a party to the suit in O.S.No.479 of 2005 claiming to have a share in the suit schedule mentioned property.

¶16

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

¶17

2.The suit filed by the petitioner is a bare injunction suit. The plaintiff claims to be a tenant entitled to protection under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Protection) Act, 1955.

¶18

3.The Trial Court by its impugned order dated 25.04.2007, has clearly given a finding that the first respondent is a necessary party for the proper adjudication of the suit.

¶19

4.This Court is also in agreement with the finding of the Trial Court that the first respondent, who claims to have a share in the suit schedule mentioned property, is definitely a necessary party for the proper adjudication of the suit.

¶20

5.Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the Trial Court has rightly allowed the Impleading Application, i.e., I.A.No.339 of 2006 in O.S.No.479 of 2005 filed by the first respondent to implead himself as a party to the suit and there is no ground for interference.

¶21

6.Accordingly, the instant Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶22

Sd/Deputy Registrar(CS) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar pam To The District Munsif Court, Udumalpet.

¶23

1 cc to Mr. Mouli, Advocate Sr.3056 + 1 cc to Mr. S. Gunalan, Advocate Sr.2948 + 1 cc to Mr.V. Nicholas, Advocate Sr.2964

¶24

CRP No.3863 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 (CS-DR) EU(06/02/2018 )

¶25

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

V.Ramasamy v. Thirumutrhy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Ramasamy v. Thirumutrhy

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

V.Balasubramanian Vs M/S.Shriram City Union Finance

Shanthi Thiagarajan Vs Ke Gnanavelraja

Madras Port Trust Vs S&S Enviro Technologies Ltd.

V.Jegannatha Chettiar Vs Kasthuri Ammal

S.Bhupathi, Vs The Director of Town

M. Sundaram Vs The District Collector