Dismissed¶53

P.Ashok Kumar v. Mr.Rajendra Kumar Daga and 4 Others

Madras HC1 Sept 2025A/3079/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Impleadment application by third party into disposed suit rejected at threshold; setting aside of ex parte decree dated 10.07.2012 in C.S.No.132 of 2009 (specific performance on sale agreement dated 15.12.2004) refused; distinction between preliminary/final decree proceedings and specific performance decree; competing sale agreements dated 05.10.2003 and 15.12.2004; applicant's own decree in O.S.No.7544 of 2019 (decreed 11.04.2022); execution pending in E.P.No.27 of 2018; remedy indicated is separate declaratory suit; High Court of Judicature at Madras; Dr. Justice R.N. Manjula; decided 01-09-2025; A No. 3079 of 2025; A No. 3080 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

The application filed by the applicant to implead himself as a party to the disposed suit is not maintainable even at the threshold and is dismissed. ¶53

P.Ashok Kumar Vs Mr.Rajendra Kumar Daga and 4 Others — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, a third party to the disposed suit C.S.No.132 of 2009, can be impleaded as a party to the suit at this stage. +1 more

¶46

Court's answer

The application filed by the applicant to implead himself as a party to the disposed suit is not maintainable even at the threshold and is dismissed.

¶53

Ratio / Principle

Since the applicant was not a party to the suit and his impleading application itself stands dismissed, the relief of setting aside the decree does not arise and that application is closed.

¶53

Key takeaways

Persons who were not parties to a suit may sometimes get impleaded in final decree proceedings following a preliminary decree, but the decree here is one for specific performance and not a preliminary decree, so that route does not apply.ratio¶52
The proper remedies lie outside these applications: the present plaintiff may file a suit to declare the third party's decree invalid, or the third party may file a fresh suit to declare the plaintiff's decree invalid, if so advised.obiter¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Dr. Justice R.N. Manjula), 01-09-2025, A Nos. 3079 and 3080 of 2025 in C.S.No.132 of 2009: A third party (P. Ashok Kumar), holding a decree in his favour in O.S.No.7544 of 2019 (based on a sale agreement dated 05.10.2003, decreed on 11.04.2022, to which the present plaintiff was not a party), sought impleadment into the disposed suit C.S.No.132 of 2009 and setting aside of its ex parte decree dated 10.07.2012, which had granted specific performance on a sale agreement dated 15.12.2004, while execution E.P.No.27 of 2018 was pending. Held: the impleading application is not maintainable even at the threshold - the suit stood disposed in 2012, and the decree is one for specific performance, not a preliminary decree, so strangers cannot be impleaded as is possible in final decree proceedings; consequently the application to set aside the decree does not arise and is closed. The proper course for either side is a separate suit to declare the other's decree invalid. Applications dismissed/closed.

¶1

A No. 3079 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01-09-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

A No. 3079 of 2025 and A No. 3080 of 2025

¶7

¶8

CS No. 132 of 2009,

¶9

P.Ashok Kumar

¶10

No.51, Hunters Road, Chennai 600 112.

¶11

Applicant(s)

¶12

¶13

Mr.Rajendra Kumar Daga And 4 Others No.1-A, Chandanbala Annex - II, Door No.1, Brithapet Road, Vepery, Chennai 600 007.

¶14

2.Mr.T.Sridhar

¶15

No.40A(24A) Dewan Rama Road, Purasawakkam, Chennai 600 084.

¶16

3.T.Madhavan Chennai

¶17

4.T.Meera Chennai

¶18

5.M/s.Muthialpet Benefit Fund Ltd

¶19

No.199, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai 600 001.

¶20

Respondent(s)

¶21

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

¶22

A No. 3079 of 2025

¶23

A No. 3080 of 2025

¶24

P.Ashok Kumar

¶25

No.51, Hunters Road, Chennai 600 112.

¶26

Applicant(s)

¶27

¶28

Mr.Rajendra Kumar Daga And 4 Others

¶29

No.1-A, Chandanbala Annex - II, Door No.1, Brithapet Road, Vepery, Chennai 600 007.

¶30

2.Mr.T.Sridhar

¶31

No.40A(24A) Dewan Rama Road, Purasawakkam, Chennai 600 084.

3.T.Madhavan

Chennai

4.T.Meera Chennai

5.M/s.Muthialpet Benefit Fund Ltd No.199, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai 600 001.

¶36

Respondent(s)

¶37

A No. 3079 of 2025

¶38

PRAYER : To set aside the ex parte decree dated 10/07/2012 passed in the above suit in C.S.No.132 of 2009.

¶39

A No. 3080 of 2025

¶40

PRAYER : To implead the Applicant/5th Proposed Defendant as Party 5th Defendant in the above suit C.S.No.132 of 2009.

¶41

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

¶42

A No. 3079 of 2025

¶43

For Applicant : M/s. L.OM Magesh

¶44

For Respondents : Mr.C.Subramanian for Mr.N.Raja Senthoor Pandian

¶45

ORDER

¶46

The above applications have been filed by the third party to the suit to implead himself in the suit which has been disposed as early as in the year 2012 and to set aside the exparte decree dated 10.07.2012 passed in the above suit.

¶47

The suit has been filed in the year 2009 by the plaintiff against the defendants on the strength of the sale agreement dated 15.12.2004 for seeking the relief of specific performance. After the suit was decreed and the relief of specific performance was granted, now the execution proceedings has been filed and it is pending in E.P.No.27 of 2018. At this stage, these applications have been filed to implead the applicant as a party to the disposed suit stating that he has also filed a suit in O.S.No.7544 of 2019 against the very same defendants on the sale agreement executed in his favour dated 05.10.2003. The suit has been decreed on 11.04.2022. The present plaintiff was not a party to the earlier suit filed by the applicant in O.S.No.7544 of 2019.

¶48

The applicant claims that his decree is earlier in point of time. Now the applicant cannot destabilize his decree by filing the impleading petition at this

¶49

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

¶50

A No. 3079 of 2025

¶51

remote point in time. Knowingly, the suit has been disposed on merits and a decree has already been passed as early as on 10.07.2012. So it is upto the present plaintiff to file a suit to declare the decree obtained by the third party as invalid or the third party has to file a fresh suit to declare the decree obtained by the plaintiff of this suit is invalid, if they are so advised. Without resorting to the remedy actually meant for him, the applicant cannot circumscribe and file these applications to implead himself as a party to the suit which has already been disposed and to set aside the exparte decree.

¶52

To be noted that the decree passed in the suit is not a preliminary decree and what is now pending is not final decree proceedings in which sometimes the parties who are not the parties to the suit might get impleaded for the purpose of final decree. The situation that has arisen in this suit is completely different as the decree passed in the suit is for specific performance and not for final decree proceedings.

¶53

Therefore, the application filed by the applicant to implead himself as a party to the suit is not maintainable even at the threshold and the same is dismissed. As the applicant has not been a party to this suit and his application to implead him as a party itself is dismissed, the other relief seeking to set aside the decree will not arise and hence, it is closed.

¶54

01-09-2025

¶55

gsk

¶56

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

¶57

A No. 3079 of 2025

¶58

¶59

1.Mr.Rajendra Kumar Daga And 4 Others

¶60