Allowed¶54

Selladurai, v. Sakthivel

Madras HC9 Dec 2025CRP/1573/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, R. Sakthivel J. (single Judge) - CRP No.1573 of 2022, decided 09/12/2025 (reserved 07/10/2025), Neutral Citation 2025:MHC:2800 - impleadment of subsequent/pendente lite purchaser under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC in injunction suit - necessary party - dominus litis - Field Measurement Book (FMB) entries - Article 227 Constitution of India - Kallakurichi - revision allowed, impleadment as seventh defendant ordered.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; Trial Court's order in I.A.No.1109 of 2021 set aside and the impleadment application allowed (impleading the Revision Petitioner as seventh defendant in O.S.No.149 of 2021); no order as to costs; connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition closed. ¶54

Selladurai, Vs Sakthivel — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the Revision Petitioner, who purchased 17 cents in Survey No.137/8A from the first defendant by sale deed dated August 26, 2021 (i.e., before the first hearing of the suit), is a necessary party to O.S.No.149 of 2021 and entitled to be impleaded as seventh defendant under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, particularly qua the plaintiff's second prayer restraining official respondents from making FMB entries contrary to his sale deed.

¶34

Court's answer

In a suit for bare injunction, the plaintiff is the dominus litis and he alone could choose the defendants.

¶49

Ratio / Principle

As far as the first prayer for permanent injunction in respect of the suit property is concerned, the Revision Petitioner is not a necessary party.

¶49

Key takeaways

The Revision Petitioner is a necessary party qua the second prayer, which seeks injunction against Respondent Nos.3 to 6 (official respondents) not to make entries in the Field Measurement Book (FMB) contrary to the plaintiff's sale deed dated April 3, 2017, since its grant would cause prejudice to the Revision Petitioner's rights over the suit property.ratio¶49
Having purchased the suit property from the first defendant on August 26, 2021, i.e., before the first hearing of the suit filed on August 11, 2021, the Revision Petitioner is a necessary party to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, to decide the matter on merits, for effective adjudication and to render complete justice.ratio¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 against dismissal of an impleadment application (I.A.No.1109 of 2021 under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC) in O.S.No.149 of 2021 (suit for injunction, II Additional District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi). The Revision Petitioner had purchased 17 cents in Survey No.137/8A from the first defendant by sale deed dated August 26, 2021, i.e., before the first hearing of the suit filed on August 11, 2021. Held: although in a bare-injunction suit the plaintiff is dominus litis and the purchaser is not a necessary party qua the prayer for permanent injunction, he is a necessary party qua the second prayer seeking restraint on official respondents from making Field Measurement Book (FMB) entries contrary to the plaintiff's sale deed, since its grant would prejudice his rights; impleading him avoids multiplicity of proceedings, enables effective adjudication and renders complete justice. Trial Court order dated December 02, 2021 set aside; I.A. allowed; no costs; connected CMP closed. (Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:2800)

¶1

2025:MHC:2800

¶2

CRP NO.1573 OF 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

ORDER RESERVED ON : 07 / 10 / 2025 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 09 / 12 / 2025

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL

¶7

CRP NO.1573 OF 2022 AND CMP NO.7938 OF 2022

¶8

Selladurai Kattukottai, Siruvankur Village, Kallakurichi Taluk, Kallakurichi District.

¶9

... Petitioner / Petitioner / Proposed 7^th Defendant

¶10

Versus

¶11

1.Sakthivel No.24 G, Katchery Road, Kaspa Kallakurichi Town, Kallakurichi Taluk, Kallakurichi District. ... 1^st Respondent / 1^st Respondent / Plaintiff 2.Ponnammal, No.24, Ja.Endhal Village, Vappur Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶12

3.Rajasekar, No.28, Pillaiyar Kovil Street, Kaspa Sangarapuram Town,

¶13

Page No.1 of 9

¶14

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

¶15

CRP NO.1573 OF 2022

¶16

Sangarapuram Taluk, Kallakurichi District.

¶17

4.District Collector, Kaspa Kallakurichi Collectorate Office, Kallakurichi District.

¶18

5.Sub Collector, Kaspa Kallakurichi Office, Kallakurichi Taluk, Kallakurichi District.

¶19

6.Revenue Thasildar, Kallakurichi Taluk, Kallakurichi District.

¶20

7.Village Administrative Officer, Neelamangalam Village, Kallakurichi Town & District. ... Respondents 2 to 7 / Respondents 2 to 7 / Defendants

¶21

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to set aside the Fair and Decreetal Order dated December 02, 2021 in I.A.No.1109 of 2021 in O.S.No.149 of 2021 passed by the II Additional District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi.

¶22

For Petitioner : Ms.R.Divya Preathika For Respondent-1 : Mr.M.Venkatesh for Mr.R.Jaya Prakash For Respondents 2&4 : Served – No appearance For Respondent-3 : Given up

¶23

Page No.2 of 9

¶24

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

¶25

CRP NO.1573 OF 2022

¶26

For Respondents 4 to 7 : Mr.B.Tamil Nidhi Additional Government Pleader

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

The Revision Petitioner filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.1109 of 2021 under Order I Rule 10 (2) of 'the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ('CPC') in O.S.No.149 of 2021 on the file of 'the II Additional District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi' ['Trial Court' for short] praying to implead him as seventh defendant in the said Suit. The Trial Court dismissed the said Interlocutory Application. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal Order, the Revision Petitioner has preferred this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

¶29

2. The First Respondent herein is the Plaintiff and the Respondent Nos.2 to 7 herein are the Defendants in O.S.No.149 of 2021. The First Respondent / plaintiff filed the aforesaid Original Suit praying for Injunction restraining Respondent Nos.1 and 2 from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property and also seeking injunction against Respondent Nos.3 to 6 (Official Respondents) not to make entries in the Field Measurement Book (FMB) contrary to his Sale

¶30

Page No.3 of 9

¶31

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

¶32

CRP NO.1573 OF 2022

¶33

Deed dated April 3, 2017. The said Suit was filed on August 11, 2021. The Trial Court issued summons to the defendants for appearance on September 6, 2021.

¶34

3. The case of the Revision Petitioner is that he purchased an extent of 17 Cents within specified four boundaries in Survey No.137/8A (New Survey No.137/8A2A) from the second respondent/first defendant – Pounammal vide Sale Deed dated August 26, 2021 i.e., before the first hearing of the Suit. The plaintiff filed the aforesaid Original Suit including the revision petitioner’s property in the Suit description of property and sought an injunction. If any injunction is passed, it will cause prejudice to his rights over his property. Accordingly, now his presence is necessary to decide the matter effectively. Accordingly, he sought to allow the Interlocutory Application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC.

¶35

4. The Trial Court dismissed the Interlocutory Application reasoning out that the petitioner is a pendente lite purchaser and he is not a necessary party to the Suit. Feeling aggrieved by the same, he has filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,

¶36

Page No.4 of 9

¶37

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

¶38

CRP NO.1573 OF 2022

¶39

¶40

5. Ms.R.Divya Preathika, learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner would submit that the Trial Court did not appreciate the entire facts and circumstances in a proper manner. The Plaintiff has no right in the entire Suit Property. The Suit description of property is wrong.

¶41

The Plaintiff included the Revision Petitioner’s property in the Suit description of property so as to cause prejudice to the Revision Petitioner. Further, the learned Counsel drew attention of this Court to Plaint Prayer No.(2) and submits that to decide the relief sought therein, the Revision Petitioner is a necessary party. If Prayer No.(2) is granted as prayed for by the Plaintiff, it will cause prejudice to the right of the Revision Petitioner. Accordingly, she would pray to allow this Civil Revision Petition.

¶42

6. In response to the above arguments, Mr.M.Venkatesh appearing on behalf of Mr.R.Jayaprakash, learned Counsel on record for the First Respondent / Plaintiff would argue that the Revision Petitioner is not a necessary party to the Suit. The Suit is one for injunction simpliciter and the Plaintiff being the dominus litis does not seek any relief against the Revision Petitioner, in these circumstances, the Revision Petitioner is not

¶43

Page No.5 of 9

¶44

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

¶45

CRP NO.1573 OF 2022

¶46

a necessary party to the Suit. The Trial Court rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances and dismissed the Interlocutory Application. There is no warrant to interfere with it. Accordingly, he would pray to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

¶47

7. Mr.B.Tamil Nidhi, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the Respondent Nos.4 to 7 would submit that the Respondent Nos.4 to 7 will abide any Order that will be passed by this Court.

¶48

8. This Court has considered both sides' submissions and perused the materials available on record.

¶49

9. In a Suit for bare injunction, it is true that the Plaintiff is the dominus litis and he alone could choose the Defendants. In this case, as far as the first prayer qua permanent injunction in respect of suit property is concerned, the Revision Petitioner is not a necessary party. However he is a necessary party qua the second prayer which is for injunction against Respondent Nos.3 to 6 (Official Respondents) not to make entries in the Field Measurement Book (FMB) contrary to his Sale Deed dated April 3, 2017. If the Trial Court grants the second prayer, it will definitely cause

¶50

Page No.6 of 9

¶51

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

¶52

CRP NO.1573 OF 2022

¶53

prejudice to the Revision Petitioner’s rights over the Suit Property. The Suit was filed on August 11, 2021 and the Revision Petitioner purchased the Suit Property from the First Defendant on August 26, 2021 i.e., before the first hearing of the Suit. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, to decide the matter on merits and for effective adjudication and to render complete justice, the Revision Petitioner is a necessary party to the Suit. Hence, this Court is inclined to allow the Revision Petition.

¶54

10. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the Order passed by the Trial Court in I.A.No.1109 of 2021 is set aside and consequently I.A.No.1109 of 2021 is allowed. Considering the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed

¶55

09 / 12 / 2025

¶56

Index : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes Speaking Order : Yes

¶57

TK / pam

¶58

Page No.7 of 9

¶59

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

¶60

CRP NO.1573 OF 2022