Allowed¶20

S.Shaji v. C.D.Babu

Madras HC16 Dec 2025CMP/17743/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Impleadment of necessary/proposed party in Civil Revision Petition; C.M.P. allowed despite objection; ownership dispute over vehicle Reg. No. KRQ-1562 allegedly sold to third Respondent Stanley with No Objection Certificate from Regional Transport Officer; material date May 5, 2015; contention that no sale documents produced by Petitioner; Respondents 1 and 3 absent; Registry to amend main C.R.P. and list on 19.01.2026; single-judge decision dated 16.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

Impleadment of the third Respondent/proposed party (Stanley) approved: the Civil Miscellaneous Petition was allowed, and the Registry was directed to carry out the necessary amendment in the main Civil Revision Petition and list it on 19.01.2026. ¶20

S.Shaji Vs C.D.Babu — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner sold the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KRQ-1562 in favour of the third Respondent/Stanley or not, such that the third Respondent/proposed party must be present for the issue to be effectively adjudicated within C.R.P.No.3142 of 2022.

¶16

Court's answer

This Court held that the question whether the Petitioner sold the vehicle (Reg. Nos. KRQ-1562/KRQ 1562) in favour of the third Respondent/Stanley can be effectively adjudicated only in the presence of the third Respondent/proposed party.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

This Court considered the presence of the third Respondent necessary for an effective adjudication of the Civil Revision Petition and, on that basis, allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Petition requesting the impleadment.

¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Impleadment petition decided by the High Court judge (R. Sakthivel, J.) on 16.12.2025 in C.M.P.No.17743 of 2024 filed within pending C.R.P.No.3142 of 2022. Petitioner Shaji sought impleading of the third Respondent/proposed party Stanley, asserting that he had sold vehicle Reg. No. KRQ-1562 to Stanley after obtaining a No Objection Certificate from the Regional Transport Officer and was therefore not the owner on the material date of May 5, 2015. Counsel for the second Respondent objected that no document proving the sale had been produced and that the proposed party had no connection with the proceedings. Held: whether the alleged sale took place can be effectively adjudicated only in the presence of the third Respondent, whose presence is necessary for effective adjudication of the Civil Revision Petition; accordingly the C.M.P. was allowed (Respondents 1 and 3 having neither appeared nor contested), and the Registry was directed to amend the main C.R.P. and list it on 19.01.2026.

¶1

C.M.P.No.17743 of 2024 in C.R.P.No.3142 of 2022

¶2

R.SAKTHIVEL.J.

¶3

Even though this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is not printed in the cause list, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is taken up for disposal today.

¶4

Mr.D.Vijay, learned Counsel on Record for the Petitioner and

¶5

Ms.R.Sree Vidhya, learned Counsel on Record for the second Respondent are before this Court.

¶6

Despite the names being printed in the cause list, Respondents 1 and 3 have neither appeared nor chosen to contest the Civil Revision Petition.

¶7

4. Mr.D.Vijay, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that

¶8

the Petitioner has in fact sold the vehicle bearing Registration No.KRQ-1562 in favour of the third Respondent after obtaining a No Objection Certificate from the Regional Transport Officer. Hence on the material date, i.e., May 5, 2015, the Petitioner was not the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration Number KRQ-1562. To decide the dispute effectively and the proposed party/third respondent is necessary party. Accordingly, he prays to allow the Civil

¶9

1/4

¶10

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

¶11

Miscellaneous Petition.

¶12

5. Percontra, Ms.R.Sree Vidhya, learned Counsel for the second Respondent submits that the Petitioner/Shaji is the registered owner of the vehicle and that the third Respondent/Proposed Party is no way connected with

¶13

the present proceedings. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has not produced any document to show that he sold the vehicle bearing Registration No.KRQ-1562 to the third Respondent. In the absence of any document or proof, impleading third Respondent in the main Civil Revision Petition would

¶14

not help to either party or Court. Accordingly, the learned Counsel prays for dismissal of the C.M.P.

¶15

6. This Court has considered the submissions made on either side.

¶16

7. The question as to whether the Petitioner has sold the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KRQ 1562 in favour of the third Respondent/Stanley or not, is an issue that can be effectively adjudicated only in presence of the third Respondent/proposed party.

¶17

8. In view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the considered

¶18

view that the presence of third Respondent is necessary for an effective 2/4

¶19

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

¶20

adjudication of the Civil Revision Petition. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.

¶21

16.12.2025

¶22

kmm Note: Registry shall carry out necessary amendment in the main Civil Revision Petition and list the same on 19.01.2026.