Civil revision petition to set aside an order allowing impleading of statutory authorities was dismissed. The Court held that since the authorities had not shown agrievement, the impleading order stood valid.
The civil revision petition was dismissed with no costs. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P.(PD)No.2515 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.08.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P(PD)No.2515 of 2017 and CMP.No.11868 of 2017
Nanik Melwani (Deceased)
... Petitioners
vs
1/5
C.R.P.(PD)No.2515 of 2017
Rippon Building, Chennai-600 017.
10.T.V.Satyanarayana 11.Ravi Appaswamy Managing Director M/s.Appaswamy Real Estates No.3 Mangesh, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. .. Respondents (Cause title and power of Attorney accepted vide order of Court dated 28.04.2017 by this Court made in CMP.No.4041/2017 & 4042/2017 in CRP.SR.No.67611/2016)
Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order passed in I.A.14925 of 2012 in O.S.No.11695 of 2010 allowing the impleading petition filed by plaintiff to implead Respondents 12 to 15 on the file of the learned XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Parthasarathy
For Respondents : Ms.K.Ashwini Devi (for R9)
Mr.G.Veerapathiran (for R1)
No Appearance (for R2, R3, R8, R10 & R11) R4 to R7 – Not ready notice
O R D E R
The plaintiff came forward with a suit stating that he is residing in
a contiguous zone and his access to the property is through a staircase.
Pending the suit, he moved an application for interim injunction. The said
2/5
C.R.P.(PD)No.2515 of 2017
application was dismissed. After the dismissal of the I.A., the CMDA and Corporation had accorded permission for demolition of the staircase, veranda and for obliteration of the common passage. The said development took place pending the suit. Therefore, an application was taken out to implead CMDA and Corporation as party defendants to the suit in order to work out the remedies available to the plaintiff, in case he succeeds in the suit.
2.I heard Mr.R.Parthasarathy. learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr.G.Veerapathiran, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and Ms.K.Ashwini Devi, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation of Chennai. The other respondents though served had not entered appearance.
3.I am not able to appreciate as to how on impleading of the Corporation and CMDA, the defendants are anyway aggrieved. They claim the right for obliteration of the passage, demolition of the veranda and staircase only through the order that has been passed by the Corporation and CMDA.
4.It is the case of the plaintiff that the statutory authorities did not hear him before passing the order and therefore, he would plead that they will have to be made as parties, because he will be in a position to prove https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/5
C.R.P.(PD)No.2515 of 2017
that the property is a contiguous one and that the staircase is the only access to his property. It is pertinent to point out here that neither of the statutory bodies, the CMDA nor Corporation have taken it averse and have preferred a revision before this Court.
5.It is only the defendants 1 to 3, who have preferred this revision.
It is for the plaintiff to choose his opponents and not for the defendant to dictate against whom the plaintiff should fight. The plaintiff has a grievance on account of the facts, CMDA and Corporation have permitted obliteration of the passage, demolition of the veranda and staircase. The said development having taken place pending the proceeding.
6.Hence, I feel the view of the learned trial Judge that they are necessary parties to the proceeding need not be interfered with. This civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
08.08.2023 Index:Yes/No (2/2) Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes/No vs
To
The XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
4/5
C.R.P.(PD)No.2515 of 2017
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
vs
C.R.P(PD)No.2515 of 2017 and CMP.No.11868 of 2017
08.08.2023 (2/2)
5/5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order allowing the impleading of statutory authorities in the underlying civil suit under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Whether the statutory authorities (CMDA and Corporation) could have aggrievement from the plaintiff's claim to implead them.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Deepak Mirpuri
Paranthaman
Vicky M Melwani
Anup N.Melwani
Kalyani K.Saiya
Naresh Ghanshyamdas
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
