In a civil revision petition, the Madras High Court dismissed the appeal against an order allowing a woman to be impleaded as a necessary party in a property suit. The Court held that despite the lack of explicit reasons in the lower order, the conclusion was not infirm.
The civil revision petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.(MD)No.294 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
C.R.P.(MD)No.294 of 2019
Chinthal Jakkamal ... Petitioner / 1st Respondent/Plaintiff Vs. 1.K.Jothi ... 1st Respondent/ Petitioner/Proposed party 2.Baskaran ... 2nd Respondent/ 2nd Respondent/Defendant
Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the executable order and fair order, dated 30.11.2018, made in I.A.No.212 of 2018, in O.S.No.26 of 2018, on the
file of the District Munsif, Bodinayakanur.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Suriya Narayanan For Respondents : Mr.C.M.Arumugam for R1 : No appearance for R2
ORDER
The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the
order dated 30.11.2018, made in I.A.No.212 of 2018, in O.S.No.26 of 2018, on the file of the District Munsif, Bodinayakanur.
C.R.P.(MD)No.294 of 2019
C.R.P.(MD)No.294 of 2019
submit that the very order passed by the Court below do not contain any
C.R.P.(MD)No.294 of 2019
reason as to why the application has been allowed and there is no discussion whether the proposed party is necessary or proper party. Therefore, the learned counsel for the plaintiff prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition. The learned counsel for the plaintiff would rely upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2007-2-CTC-73 (S.Krishnan V. Rathinavel Naicker) .
for the plaintiff is that, he being the dominus litus , and he being the agreement holder and that the proposed party did not object the
C.R.P.(MD)No.294 of 2019
possession, she had filed a suit only against the defendant. In this regard, the learned counsel would rely upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2007-2-CTC-73 (S.Krishnan V. Rathinavel Naicker) . The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows-
“17. In a nut shell, the tests to be applied for determining the right of a party to implead another, in a pending suit or other proceeding, may be crystallized into the following categories:-
a) If without his presence no effective and complete adjudication could be made;
b) If his presence is necessary for a complete and effectual adjudication of the dispute though no relief is claimed against him;
c) If there is a cause of action against him;
d) If the relief sought in the suit or other proceedings is likely to be made binding on him;
e) If the ultimate outcome of the proceedings is likely affect him adversely;
f) If his role is really that of a 'necessary witness' but is sought to be camouflaged as a 'necessary party';
If a party to a litigation satisfies the court that the person sought to be impleaded, passes any one or more of the above tests, then he is entitled to get the
C.R.P.(MD)No.294 of 2019
discretion of the court exercised in his favour. The above tests are not exhaustive and at times, even if a person falls under any one of the above categories, the court may refuse to implead him. To quote an example, a subsequent purchaser of a property, which forms the subject matter of the suit, may satisfy the tests (d) and (e) above mentioned and yet the court may decline to implead him on the basis of the doctrine of lis pendens. Therefore the above list is only a broad statement of the principles that could be culled out from judicial precedents.”
12 . On perusal of the above judgment, it is very much apparent that the presence of the party become necessary, if their presence is essential for a complete and effectual adjudication of the dispute, though no relief is claimed against them. Admittedly, on the plain reading of the plaint pleading in paragraph No.8, there is a specific reference about the police complaint given by the proposed party during 2015. In such an event, the plaintiff now cannot come and say that the proposed parties are not the necessary and proper party. Though the plaintiff is the dominus litus , the same is no way give authority to them to ignore the necessary and proper party.
C.R.P.(MD)No.294 of 2019
below while allowing the amendment application has not recorded any reason in its order, this Court could not find any infirmity in the final conclusion of the Court below. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the order of the Court below does not require any interference.
dismissed . There shall be no order as to cost.
11.09.2023
NCC : Yes/No Index :Yes/No Ls
C.R.P.(MD)No.294 of 2019
C.KUMARAPPAN.,J.
Ls
To
1.The District Munsif, Bodinayakanur.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Order made in C.R.P(MD)No.294 of 2019
11.09.2023
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the single judge's order allowing the impleadment of a proposed party requires interference by the High Court in a revision petition despite the absence of recorded reasons.
Whether the presence of the proposed party is necessary for the complete adjudication of the dispute regarding property possession.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S.Krishnan V. Rathinavel NaickerReferred¶35
2007-2-CTC-73 (S.Krishnan V. Rathinavel Naicker)
Chinthal Jakkamal
K.Jothi
Baskaran
C. Kumarappan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
