Partly allowed

P.Ravi v. T.Vivekanandan

Madras HC18 Nov 2024CRP/4478/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision, the High Court upheld the impleading of a petitioner into an attachment proceeding but dismissed the contention that his impleading to the main recovery suit was necessary. The Court reasoned that since the petitioner's interest arose post-plaint, his presence in the suit is dispensable, while his presence in attachment proceedings is requisite to determine bona fides.

What did the court decide?

The order impleading the petitioner to the attachment application is sustained; the order impleading the petitioner to the suit is dismissed.

P.Ravi Vs T.Vivekanandan — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P.(PD)No.4478 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 18.11.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

C.R.P.(PD)No.4478 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.24999 of 2024

¶7

P. Ravi .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs 1. T.Vivekanandan 2. N.Gopal .. Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge (FAC), Tiruchengode in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.348 of 2022.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Chendur Eashwaran

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.D.Shivakumaran

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

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

¶14

1/8

¶15

C.R.P.(PD)No.4478 of 2024

¶16

This civil revision petition challenges the order of the learned II Additional District Judge at Tiruchengode in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.348 of 2022, dated 21.03.2024.

¶17

The civil revision petitioner is a third party to O.S.No.348 of 2022. The 1^st respondent herein presented O.S.No.348 of 2022 seeking for recovery of a sum of Rs.11 lakhs. The suit has been presented on the foot of a promissory note. Summons were taken to the defendant who is the 2^nd respondent before me. An application was also filed calling upon the defendant to furnish security or in the default, to attach the petition mentioned properties. This application was taken out as a mean of a protection for the plaintiff to recover his amounts. Notice was ordered in that application also.

¶18

A certified copy of the proceedings in I.A.No.2 of 2022 has been produced by Mr.S.Chendur Eashwaran. It shows that the learned District Judge had ordered the 2^nd respondent to furnish security to the suit claim on 24.08.2022. Thereafter, he adjourned the matter to 23.09.2022. On 23.09.2022, the 2^nd respondent/defendant appeared in person before the

¶19

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

¶20

2/8

¶21

C.R.P.(PD)No.4478 of 2024

¶22

learned District Judge and sought time to engage a counsel and to file a counter. Adjourning the matter on that day, the learned Judge directed that a counter be filed on 17.10.2022 and continued the order directing the defendant to furnish security. On 17.10.2022, the 2^nd respondent/defendant engaged a lawyer and sought for time to file a counter. Repeatedly, for the very same purpose, the matter was adjourned on 05.12.2022 and 19.12.2022.

¶23

On 23.01.2023, to the shock and surprise of the plaintiff, he came to know that the civil revision petitioner had allegedly purchased the property from the 2^nd respondent on 13.10.2022. Hence, he took out an application to implead the civil revision petitioner as a party to I.A.No.2 of 2022 as well as in the suit. This application was numbered as I.A.No.3 of 2023. The learned District Judge ordered notice in the application. The civil revision petitioner filed a counter stating that he had purchased the property, after making due enquiry, with the neighbors and on verification of the encumbrance certificate. The parties did not enter the witness box, but had marked several documents.

¶24

The plaintiff had marked Exs.P1 and P2 namely, the deeds

¶25

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

¶26

3/8

¶27

C.R.P.(PD)No.4478 of 2024

¶28

disclosing the purchase that had been made by the 2^nd respondent from one Muthu Gounder and the alienation that had been made by the 2^nd respondent in favour of the civil revision petitioner. On the side of the civil revision petitioner, Exs.R1 to R19 namely, several deeds of cancellation of agreements, no due certificate etc.

¶29

On a consideration of the affidavit, counter and the documents filed before the Court, the learned Judge felt that the presence of the civil revision petitioner is essential in the application as well as in the suit and hence, allowed the impleading.

¶30

Aggrieved by the same, the proposed party is on revision before

¶31

me.

¶32

When the matter came up for admission, I requested Ms.N.Lavanya, who represented the civil revision petitioner, to serve notice on Mr.N.Jayabalamurugan, the learned counsel, who represents the plaintiff in the Court below. Notice has been served and Mr.D.Shivakumaran has entered appearance for the plaintiff/1^st respondent.

¶33

I heard Mr.S.Chendur Eashwaran and Mr.D.Shivakumaran. I

¶34

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

¶35

4/8

¶36

C.R.P.(PD)No.4478 of 2024

¶37

have carefully gone through the records.

¶38

The narration of the aforesaid fact shows that the 2^nd respondent had appeared before the learned District Judge and was aware that there was an order directing him to furnish security. Thereafter, at his instance, the matter was adjourned on three occasions. Taking advantage of the fact that the Court had granted him with an indulgence of adjournment, he had entered into a sale deed with the civil revision petitioner.

¶39

Whether the civil revision petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of the suit property without due notice or otherwise, are matters which the civil revision petitioner and the 1^st respondent would have to demonstrate before the Court after tendering a evidence, if they so desire. However, the civil revision petitioner cannot plead that he is not a proper and necessary party to the attachment proceedings. His interest has come about pending the litigation and therefore, he necessarily has to be before the Court. In case the Court comes to a conclusion that the purchase made by the civil revision petitioner was with the knowledge of the orders of the Court, then he would be answerable to the claim that will be made by

¶40

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

¶41

5/8

¶42

C.R.P.(PD)No.4478 of 2024

¶43

the plaintiff. On the contrary, if the Court were come to the conclusion that the civil revision petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of the property, consequences will follow. However, I am not in a position to agree with the submission of Mr.S.Chendur Eashwaran that the civil revision petitioner is not a necessary party to the interlocutory application.

¶44

At the same time, I am not in a position to agree with Mr.D.Shivakumaran that the civil revision petitioner is a proper and necessary party to the suit. With respect to the suit, the plaintiff would have to prove that the 2^nd respondent/defendant had received the amounts and had executed a promissory note. For this purpose, a Johnny-comelately in the form of the civil revision petitioner is neither essential nor necessary. The alleged right of the civil revision petitioner has come about after the presentation of the plaint. Therefore, his presence in the suit is absolutely unnecessary.

¶45

In the light of the above discussions, the civil revision petition partly succeeds on the following terms:

¶46

(i) The order passed by the learned Trial Judge in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.348 of 2022 dated 21.03.2024 is sustained.

¶47

6/8

¶48

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

¶49

C.R.P.(PD)No.4478 of 2024

¶50

(ii) In so far as the impleading of the civil revision petitioner to the

¶51

suit is concerned, it will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶52

18.11.2024

¶53

Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes/No kj To II Additional District Judge (FAC), Tiruchengode.

¶54

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.

¶55

¶56

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

¶57

7/8

¶58

C.R.P.(PD)No.4478 of 2024

¶59

C.R.P.(PD)No.4478 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.24999 of 2024

¶60

18.11.2024

¶61

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

¶62

8/8

P.Ravi v. T.Vivekanandan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Ravi v. T.Vivekanandan

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

B.Revathy Vs Harriraj

Saroja Vs K.Surya

Subramani (Died) 1. Ramayal Vs Kumarasamy

M/s.Felix Infotech Private Limted Vs M/s.Synfocom Systems LLP

G.R.Surendar Vs Lavanya

Raman Vs Poongavanam (Died), 1.Rajathi