Allowed

Ponraj v. John Elangovan

Madras HC16 Apr 2021CRP/3750/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition challenging an order dismissing an application to implead new defendants. The court held that the original impleadment order was unsustainable due to the petitioner's standing, remanding the matter for fresh consideration allowing the petitioner to file for necessary substitution before merits are considered.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of rejection was set aside; matter remanded for fresh consideration and opportunity to substitute the plaintiff's representative.

Ponraj Vs John Elangovan — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CRP.PD.No.3750 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16.04.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

CRP (PD) No.3750 of 2018
and
CMP.No.20905 of 2018
Ponraj
“Then Indhia Deva Sanga Sthabanam”/
“South India Assemblies of God”
Represented by its Pastor Anthonyraj
VOC Nagar,
Kallakurichi Town & Taluk
Villupuram District. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. John Elangovan
2. R.Suresh
3. Maadhu
4. Chinnapaiyan
5. Rasalraj ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order of the District
Munsif Court at Sankarapuram, dated 05.06.2018 in I.A.No.540 of 2017 in
O.S.No.9 of 2014.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Valliappan

¶8

For Respondents : Mr.N.Suresh (for R1 & R2)

¶9

1/4

¶10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶11

CRP.PD.No.3750 of 2018

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.540 of 2017 in O.S.No.9 of 2014 dated 05.06.2018 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Sankarapuram, thereby dismissing

¶14

the petition to implead the proposed defendants.

¶15

The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents 1 and 2 are the

¶16

defendants in the suit filed by the petitioner for declaration and injunction in respect of the suit property. While pending the suit, the first respondent herein sold out some of the suit property in favour of the proposed defendants. Therefore, the petitioner filed a petition to implead them as defendants in the suit. Originally, the suit was filed by the plaintiff viz., the “Then Indhia Deva Sanga Sthabanam”/“South India Assemblies of God” represented by its Pastor Ponraj. Subsequently, one Anthonyraj was appointed as Paster of “Then Indhia Deva Sanga Sthabanam”/“South India

¶17

Assemblies of God”. On receipt of a transfer letter, he filed a petition to implead the proposed defendants. The Court below though observed that the

¶18

subsequent purchasers are necessary parties to the suit, it held that the petitioner Anthonyraj is not representing the plaintiff and dismissed the

¶19

2/4

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶21

CRP.PD.No.3750 of 2018

¶22

petition. Further, it is stated that when the said Anthonyraj is not substituted

¶23

in the place of Ponraj, he cannot represented the plaintiff.

¶24

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he

¶25

may be permitted to file an appropriate petition to substitute the said Ponraj

¶26

to represent the plaintiff and thereafter, the present petition may be considered for passing orders on merits.

¶27

Considering the above submission, this Civil Revision Petition is

¶28

allowed and the order passed in I.A.No.540 of 2017 in O.S.No.9 of 2014 dated 05.06.2018 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Court below for fresh consideration. The petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate petition to substitute himself to represent the plaintiff and thereafter, the present petition may be considered and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to the respondents.

¶29

Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶30

16.04.2021

¶31

Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶33

3/4

¶34

CRP.PD.No.3750 of 2018

¶35

¶36

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.

¶37

¶38

¶39

The District Munsif, Sankarapuram.

¶40

The Section Officer,

¶41

V.R. Section, High Court of Madras.

¶42

CRP (PD) No.3750 of 2018

¶43

16.04.2021

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶45

4/4

Ponraj v. John Elangovan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ponraj v. John Elangovan

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

M.P. Aravinda Vs P. Karl Marx

D.Mohammed Dhaha, Vs M.D.Ameerunnissa

M.Nagaraj Vs P.Ramachandran

Selvi Vs Kalaimagal

M.Munivenkatamma Vs Nanjamma

G.Lakshmi Narayanan Vs P.R.N.Subramanian