Damodaran v. Arul
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the District Munsif Court's order allowing sons to be impleaded as plaintiffs in a bare injunction suit. The court found no basis to interfere under Article 227.
What did the court decide?
Civil revision petition dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed; No costs.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.10.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.R.P.No. 2465 of 2018 and C.M.P.No. 15131 of 2018 Damodaran ...Petitioner/1st Defendant Vs. 1.Arul 2.Anandan 3.Venu ..Respondents 1 to 3/Proposed Plaintiff 4.Andal ..4th Respondent/Plaintiff 5.The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office, Taluk Office Complex, Tiruvallur. ..5th Respondent/2nd Defendant Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order of the learned District Munsif Court, Thiruvallur passed on 08.01.2018 by allowing the I.A.No.954 of 2016 in O.S.No.71 of 2012.
For Petitioner : Mrs.P.V.Rajeswari
For Respondents: Mr.M.P.Saravanan for R1 to R4
: Mr.T.M.Pappiah, Spl. Government Pleader for R5
O R D E R
This civil revision petition is by the first defendant in O.S.No. 71 of 2012, challenging the order of the Trial Court made in I.A.No.954 of 2016, an application for impleading, filed by the sons of the plaintiff seeking to add themselves as plaintiffs 2 to 4 in the suit.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether adding sons as plaintiffs in an injunction suit expands the nature of the suit or opens avenues for fresh pleas beyond the original relief sought.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Damodaran
- respondent
Arul
- respondent
Anandan
- respondent
Venu
- respondent
Andal
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court