This common order deals with two Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 against an order allowing impleading applications in a landlord-tenant recovery suit. The Court found no prejudice to the petitioner and dismissed the revisions as the appellate court did not act capriciously.
Both Civil Revision Petitions were dismissed with no 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.NPD.Nos.1734 & 1735 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.04.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.NPD.Nos.1734 and 1735 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.8758 of 2022
Marimuthu
... Petitioner in both CRPs
Vs.
1.Ravi @ Ravichandran
... Respondents in both CRPs
(Since the respondents 2 & 3 remained exparte in the court below, notice may be dispensed with for them)
PRAYER: Revisions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2021 in A.S.No.27 of 2017 dated 27.07.2021 on the file of the court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Muthukumar
For R1, R4 & R6 : Mr.B.Jawahar
For R2 & R3 : Notice dispensed with
1/7
C.R.P.NPD.Nos.1734 & 1735 of 2022
COMMON ORDER
These two civil revision petitions arise against the order passed in I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2021 in A.S.No.27 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai.
2/7
C.R.P.NPD.Nos.1734 & 1735 of 2022
of Rs.30,000/- will have to be repaid with enormous interest. Being left with no other option, the power of attorney was executed on 04.04.2001 was cancelled on 29.12.2010. Thereafter the plaintiff/1st respondent issued a notice seeking delivery of possession of the property.
petitioner preferred A.S.No.27 of 2017 before the Sub Court at Myiladuthurai. During the course of arguments in the appeal, the civil revision petitioner had urged before the Appellate Court that Kattari had left behind 3 daughters and they had not been impleaded as parties to the suit and the appeal deserves to be allowed. As a reaction of this argument, the applications to implead came to be filed and allowed, hence the revisions are before this Court.
3/7
C.R.P.NPD.Nos.1734 & 1735 of 2022
for the respondents.
reserved for judgment and that stage the impleading application had been filed. He argued the application is belated and therefore they ought to have been dismissed by the learned Appellate Judge instead the application was allowed and thereby the life of the litigation has been prolonged.
on account of the fact it was the civil revision petitioner, as appellant, had argued that his sisters i.e., the daughters of Kattari are proper and necessary parties to the suit and as they have not been impleaded, the suit is not maintainable.
4/7
C.R.P.NPD.Nos.1734 & 1735 of 2022
nowhere such non impleading of the 1st respondent's sisters has been taken as a ground. Under Order I Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if non impleading parties is not a specific ground in the written statement, it is deemed to have been waived. Nevertheless as the learned counsel for the civil revision petitioner before the Subordinate Court at Myiladuthurai had argued that the sisters are proper and necessary parties, the present applications came to be filed. It is not in dispute by either side that Kattari had left behind the 1st respondent and newly impleaded parties i.e., respondents 4 to 6 as legal representatives. Since the plea has been taken by the civil revision petitioner, in order to get over that plea, the present petitions have been filed.
C.R.P.NPD.Nos.1734 & 1735 of 2022
same has been exercised in a capricious manner. I do not find any error or fault in the order passed by the First Appellate Court. Consequently, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
02.04.2024
Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No Sgl
To The Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai.
6/7
C.R.P.NPD.Nos.1734 & 1735 of 2022
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Sgl
C.R.P.NPD.No.1734 and 1735 of 2022
02.04.2024
7/7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order impleading the sisters as legal representatives was justified without causing prejudice.
Whether the First Appellate Court's discretion in allowing the impleading applications was exercised capriciously.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Marimuthu
Ravi @ Ravichandran
Durai
Rajappa
Kavitha
Jaya
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
