Allowed¶38

Mrs.Rani Nicholos v. S.Kuppuraj

Madras HC4 Feb 2025CMP/11190/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Impleading petition allowed in pending second appeal; purchaser pendente lite (subsequent purchaser) added as 7th respondent; purchaser pendente lite bound by appellate judgment even without impleadment; right of subsequent purchaser to be heard under Order 22 Rule 7 CPC; counsel's 'no instructions' report held not bona fide as counsel engaged only after notice; parties Rani Nicholos v. S. Kuppuraj; proposed impleadee S. A. Thangavelu; High Court of Judicature at Madras; Single Judge (S. S. Sundar); order dated 04-02-2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition ordered: the 7th respondent, the alleged purchaser pendente lite, is impleaded as a party respondent in SA No. 817 of 2008 and is to be given an opportunity to put forth his submissions on the merits of the Second Appeal. ¶38

Mrs.Rani Nicholos Vs S.Kuppuraj — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CMP NO. 11190 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04-02-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. S. SUNDAR

¶6

CMP NO. 11190 of 2021

¶7

AND

¶8

SA NO. 817 OF 2008

¶9

Mrs.Rani Nicholos W/o.Mr.Nicholos, C-5 And C-6, Emerald Apartments, Second Floor, Davis Dale, Ootacamund-643 001. and 9 Others

Appellant(s)

S.Kuppuraj

S/o.Sadaiyappa Gounder, 164-c, Balasubramanian Road, State Bank Colony, K.K.Pudur, Coimbatore and 6 Others

¶14

Respondent(s)

¶15

SA NO. 817 of 2008

¶16

Mrs.Rani Nicholos W/o.Mr.Nicholos, C-5 And C-6, Emeralad Apartments, Second Floor, Davis Dale, Ootacamund-643 001. and 9 Others

Appellant(s)

S.Kuppuraj

S/o.Sadaiyappa Gounder, 164-c, Balasubramanian Road, State Bank Colony, K.K.Pudur, Coimbatore-641 011. and 5 Others

¶21

Respondent(s)

¶22

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

¶23

CMP NO. 11190 of 2021

¶24

For Appellant(s):

¶25

M/s. ELIZABETH RAVI FOR M/S.P.RAJA D.PRABHAVATHI For Respondent(s): M/s.A.Parthasarathy S.Pooja Shree For R7

¶26

SA NO. 817 of 2008

¶27

For Appellant(s):

¶28

M/s.S.Subbiah P.Raja M/s.R.Chandra SekaranR.N.Chandrasekaranms/1866/1999For R2R1 - S.Kuppuraj S/o.Sadaiyappa Gounder, 164-c, Balasubramanian Road, State Bank Colony, K.K.Pudur, Coimbatore-641 011.R-4 K.Duraiswamy S/o.Kuppanna Gounder, 10/1-1 Marudamalai Main Road, Kalveerampalayam, Coimbatore-46.Batta With Amended Grounds Due Reg Rr3 & 5Not Ready In Notice Reg Rr3 & 5R6 - Died ( Steps Taken )Mp.1 / 2008Rr1 To 4 - Given Up (vide In Mp)R5 - LeftV/r To M/s.V.Venkatasamy For Rr2(previous Counsel Consent To Be Obtained.Hence Returned) For Respondent(s):

¶29

ORDER

¶30

This petition is filed to implead the 7^th respondent as party respondent in the above

¶31

second appeal in SA.No.817/2008 alleging that the 7^th respondent is the purchaser of property pendente lite.

¶32

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

¶33

2.Learned counsel for the 7^th respondent submitted that he has no instructions from the 7^th respondent.

¶34

3.This Court is unable to consider the submission as a bona fide one as the learned counsel is engaged recently when the 7^th respondent received notice in the application.

¶35

4.First of all, the 7^th respondent who is a purchaser pendente lite is bound by the judgment in the Second Appeal even if he has not impleaded himself as a party.

¶36

Despite a petition is filed to implead the 7^th respondent, it is unfortunate that the

¶37

learned counsel for the 7^th respondent report no instructions. Under Order 22 Rule 7 of CPC, a purchaser pendente lite can also be heard and this is the only opportunity that can be availed of by the subsequent purchaser.

¶38

5.Therefore, it is in the interest of the 7^th respondent, he should be given an opportunity to put forth his submissions on merits of the Second Appeal. Hence, this petition is ordered.

¶39

04-02-2025

¶40

¶41

CMP NO. 11190 of 2021

¶42

¶43