The single-judge bench dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order allowing theimpleading of a sister-respondent in a suit for recovery of rental arrears. The High Court upheld theTrial Court's view that there was a title dispute between the parties requiring adjudication in presence of the necessary party.
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.1050 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.03.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
C.R.P.(PD).No.1050 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.5445 of 2024
T.V.Mylsamy ... Petitioner
vs
1.Uma Maheswari
2.T.R.Murali ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the judgement and decree made I.A.No.02 of 2022 in O.S.No.274 of 2021 dated 11.12.2023.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Ram Kumar
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the
Trial Court allowing the impleading application filed by 1st respondent, who is sister of the the petitioner.
1/4
C.R.P.(PD).No.1050 of 2024
the case of the petitioner that suit property was let out to 2nd respondent and
he was in arrears of rent. The 1st respondent herein, who is sister of the petitioner, filed an impleading application on the ground that suit filed by the petitioner seeking declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property against her and her sister was dismissed by the Trial Court and the same was confirmed in appeal in A.S.No.71 of 2006 on the file of District Court, Coimbatore. Therefore, it is the case of the 1st respondent that title of the petitioner was negatived by the Trial Court and in such circumstances, the present suit filed by the petitioner for recovery of rental arrears is nothing but an abuse of process of the court.
2/4
C.R.P.(PD).No.1050 of 2024
controversies arising for consideration in the suits in the presence of the 1st
respondent. Therefore, the Trial Court is justified in allowing the impleading
application and I do not find any error in the order impugned in this revision.
Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.03.2024
Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No dm
To
The I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.
3/4
C.R.P.(PD).No.1050 of 2024
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dm
C.R.P.(PD).No.1050 of 2024
21.03.2024
4/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court erred in allowing the impleading application of the sister-respondent who claims right over the suit property in a recovery of rent suit?
Whether the impugned order allowing the impleading application in the civil revision petition requires modification or setting aside?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
T.V.Mylsamy
Uma Maheswari
T.R.Murali
S.Sounthar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
