Writ appeal already allowed on 04.11.2024; respondents 4 and 5 sought a hearing and produced sale deeds for S.No.196/2, but could not establish identity with the subject property in S.No.196/3. Court found them unnecessary parties and confirmed the earlier order allowing the writ appeal.
Order dated 04.11.2024 allowing the writ appeal stands; matter clarified.
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.
W.A.No.1685 of 2024
W.A.No.1685 of 2024
S.S. SUNDAR, J. and P. DHANABAL, J.
[Order of the Court was made by S.S. SUNDAR, J. ]
This Court originally dictated orders on 04.11.2024 in the open Court, allowing the above Writ Appeal filed by the writ petitioner as against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.11.2023 dismissing the writ petition in W.P.No.31865 of 2023. However, on that day, there was no representation for the respondents 4 and 5. Before signing the order, learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 made a request before this Court to list the matter for hearing them. At the request of the learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5, the matter is today listed under the caption “for being mentioned”.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5 produced before this Court several documents to show that the respondents 4 and 5 have acquired an extent of 78 Cents in S.No.196/2 under two different sale deeds. The subject matter of this lis is the property in S.No.196/3. The
Page 1
W.A.No.1685 of 2024
appellant/writ petitioner has produced records to show that the appellant/writ petitioner is entitled to an extent of 14 Cents in S.No.196/3B. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5 is unable to show any document or to justify any issue relating to identity of property, which is the subject matter of this Appeal is concerned. Therefore, this Court is unable to find that the respondents 4 and 5 are necessary parties. Therefore, the writ petition without impleading them cannot be dismissed on the ground of nonjoinder of necessary parties.
3.Accordingly, the matter stands clarified and the order dated
04.11.2024 stands.
(S.S.S.R., J.) (P.D.B., J.) 22.11.2024
mkn
Page 2
W.A.No.1685 of 2024
S.S. SUNDAR, J. and P. DHANABAL, J.
mkn
W.A.No.1685 of 2024
Page 3
W.A.No.1685 of 2024
22.11.2024
Page 4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether respondents 4 and 5 are necessary parties whose non-impleading justifies dismissal of the writ petition?
Writ Petitioner / Appellant (W.P.No.31865 of 2023)
Respondents 4 and 5
S.S. Sundar
P. Dhanabal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
