Dismissed

P.Ramakrishnan v. the Thiruchirappalli Consumer

Madras HC3 Feb 2023CMP(MD)/6414/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed petitions by parties claiming to be subtenants of the first appellant/applicant. The court held that as a decree against the first respondent would bind the petitioners, their independent defence was unnecessary, and impleadment in the second appellate stage would serve no purpose.

What did the court decide?

Petitions for impleadment of petitioners as respondents 4 to 10 in SA(MD)No.869 of 2008 and as respondents 2 to 4 in SA(MD)No.868 of 2008 were dismissed.

P.Ramakrishnan Vs the Thiruchirappalli Consumer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.M.P(MD)Nos.6414 and 6434 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )

¶4

Friday, the Third day of February Two Thousand and Twenty Three

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.SOUNTHAR

¶7

C.M.P(MD)Nos.6414 and 6434 of 2019 in S.A(MD)Nos.869 and 868 of 2008

¶8

1 P.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶9

2 S.THIRUVENKADAMOORTHY

3 G.AMSAVALLI

4 A.NAINAR MOHAMMED

5 A.ANWAR ALI

6 S.RAMARAJ

7 I.SAROJA ... PETITIONERS/3RD PARTIES

¶15

¶16

1 THE THIRUCHIRAPPALLI CONSUMER CO-OPERATIVE WHOLESALE STORES REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL OFFICER, NO,12/17,E.V.R.ROAD, PUDUR, TRICHIRAPPALLI. ...1ST RESPONDENT/APPELLANT 2 THE CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATION, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI - THANJAVUR DIOCESE, REPRESENTED NY ITS AUTHORISED AGENTS.

¶17

1.REV.DR.SURESHKUMAR AROCKIASAMY DIOCESE TREASURER

¶18

3.REV.S.THILAK SAMUEL S/O SOLEMN PANDIAN, CLERICAL SECRETARY ... 2 & 3 RESPONDENT/1&2 RESPONDENT

¶19

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

¶20

1/4

¶21

C.M.P(MD)Nos.6414 and 6434 of 2019

¶22

Petition filed praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to may graciously be pleased to implead the petitioners/third parties as parties to the above second appeal and rank them as respondents 4 to 10 in the main second appeal

¶23

PRAYER IN SA(MD)No.869 of 2008

¶24

To prefer this memorandum of Second Appeal against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.154 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Trichirappalli dated 30.10.2007 confirming the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.504 of 1998 on the file of Subordinate Judge Trichirappalli dated 30.10.2006.

¶25

IN CMP(MD)NO.6434 OF 2019 IN SA(MD)NO.868 OF 2008

¶26

B.THANGAM

¶27

2.S.GUNASEELAN

¶28

ABUDHAHIR ... PETITIONERS/3RD PARTIES

¶29

VS. -

¶30

THE THIRUCHIRAPPALLI CONSUMER CO-OPERATIVE WHOLESALE STORES REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL OFFICER, NO.12/17 E.V.R.ROAD, PUDUR, TRICHIRAPPALLI. ...1ST RESPONDENT/APPELLANT

¶31

THE CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATION, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI-THANJAVUR DIOCESE, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED AGENTS,

¶32

1)REV.DR.SURESHKUMAR,

¶33

S/O.ALBERT, AROKIASAMY DIOCES TREASURER

¶34

2)REV.S.THILAK SAMUERL,

¶35

S/O.SOLEMN PANDIAN, CLERICAL SECRETARY ....2ND RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶36

Prayer in CMP(MD). 6434/ 2019 :

¶37

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that this Honble Court may graciously be pleased to implead the petitioners/third parties as respondents 2 to 4 in the main Scond Appeal and thus render justice.

¶38

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

¶39

2/4

¶40

C.M.P(MD)Nos.6414 and 6434 of 2019

¶41

PRAYER IN SA(MD)No.868 of 2008 :

¶42

To prefer this memorandum of Second Appeal against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.153 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Trichirappalli dated 30.10.2007 confirming the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.916 of 2001 on the file of Subordinate Judge Trichirappalli dated 30.10.2006.

¶43

ORDER : This petition coming up for orders on this day, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.H.THAYUMANASAMY, Advocate for the petitioner in both cases, the court made the following order:-

¶44

The petitioners herein filed these petitions for impleading them as party respondents on the ground that they are subtenants of the first respondent/appellant.

¶45

2.The suits were filed by the respondents 2 and 3 seeking decree for injunction against the first respondent/appellant and the same were decreed and confirmed in first appeals. Challenging the concurrent findings, the first respondent has filed the second appeals.

¶46

3.Now pending second appeals, the petitioners claiming themselves as subtenants under the first respondent/appellant have filed these applications seeking their impleadment in the second appeals.

¶47

Even as per the admitted case of the petitioners, they are claiming only subtenancy under the first respondent/appellant. Therefore, any decree passed against the first respondent/appellant would bind them and they cannot have any independent defence. Further the impleadment of the petitioners in the second appellate stage would not serve any purpose. Therefore, the impleading petitions are dismissed.

¶48

4.Post the second appeals for final disposal on 16.02.2023.

¶49

sd/03/02/2023

¶50

/02/2023

¶51

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. cp

¶52

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

¶53

3/4

¶54

C.M.P(MD)Nos.6414 and 6434 of 2019

¶55

¶56

1.THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TRICHIRAPPALLI.

¶57

2.THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE TRICHIRAPPALLI.

¶58

ORDER

¶59

¶60

C.M.P(MD)Nos.6414 and 6434 of 2019 in

¶61

S.A(MD)Nos.869 and 868 of 2008 Date :03/02/2023

¶62

RK/SSS/SAR-1 (10/02/2023) 6P/3C

¶63

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

¶64

4/4

P.Ramakrishnan v. the Thiruchirappalli Consumer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Ramakrishnan v. the Thiruchirappalli Consumer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Erulandi Vs Velusamy Naicker(Died)

Pappu Naidu (Died) Vs Perumal Ammal @ Seeni Ammal

Saradambal, Vs Marayee Ammal

Antony Berkmans (Died) Vs Susai Antony Fernando

Titus, Vs Sadanandhan

Ramanathapuram Samasthanam Vs State of Tamilnadu through