Sakthivel Chettiar Vs Ramachanddra Chettiar

12.Kesavan 13.Kalaimani 14.Gowramma 15.S.Lakshmi 16.R.Sekar 17.H.N.Balakrishna Murthy 18.B.Sathish Kumar 19.Amutha 20.S.Ganesh 21.Jayalakshmi 22.Nagavalli 23.D.Anandan ... Respondents

¶29

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.8 of 2022 in O.S.No.253 of 2013 dated 18.01.2024 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court at Hosur by allowing the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶30

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Jayaprakash

¶31

ORDER

¶32

Challenging the dismissal of his application for impleading the

¶33

proposed parties as defendants 19 to 23 in the suit, the plaintiff has filed the above civil revision petition.

¶34

2/8

¶35

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

¶36

C.R.P.PD.No.2681 of 2024

¶37

The facts are briefly set out herein below and the parties are

¶38

referred to in the same ranking as before the trial Court.

¶39

The plaintiff had filed the suit O.S.No.253 of 2013 on the file

¶40

of the Sub Court, Hosur for the following reliefs.

¶41

a) To pass a preliminary decree by dividing the suit property into 15 equal shares by metes and bounds in good and bad soil and to allot 5/15^th share to the plaintiff.

¶42

(b) To permit the plaintiff to file a final decree petition to divide the suit schedule property as per the preliminary decree by appointing court commissioner by dividing the suit schedule into 15 equal shares by metes and bounds in good and bad soil and to allot 5/15^th share to the plaintiff and also to deliver the separate shares to the plaintiff.

¶43

c) Granting permanent injunction against the defendants No.9 to 13 restraining them from alienating the suit property to and in favour of any third parties or any strangers until the disposal of the suit.

¶44

3/8

¶45

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

¶46

C.R.P.PD.No.2681 of 2024

¶47

d) To declare the Partition Deed vide document No.87/2011 dated 10.01.2011 as null and void.

¶48

e) To declare the Sale Deed vide Document No.88/2011 as null and void.

¶49

f) To declare the Sale Deed vide document No.1251 of 2013 dated 28.03.2013 as null and void.

¶50

g) Granting cost of the suit

¶51

When the matter was at the stage of the P.W.1 cross continuation by the defendants, the plaintiff has come forward with the I.A in question to implead the respondents 19 to 23 as defendants 19 to 23 in the suit. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, the plaintiff would submit that prior to the filing of the suit, the defendants 19 to 22 had created a nominal Sale Deed in favour of the proposed defendant-23 under a Sale Deed dated 07.12.2010 in respect of the property measuring an extent of 0.81.5 hectares in Survey No.4/1 without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff or his family

¶52

4/8

¶53

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

¶54

C.R.P.PD.No.2681 of 2024

¶55

members. The plaintiff would also state that in the written statement of defendants 2, 4, 5 and 11 an objection in this regard has been raised. The same has also been raised during the cross examination of P.W.1. Therefore, the plaintiff has come forward with the implead application.

¶56

In the counter affidavit filed by the 3^rd defendant which was adopted by defendants 2, 4 to 6 and 11. They would submit that the plaintiff has come forward to file the application at this late stage after the commencement of the trial and after 8 years from the date of filing of the written statement wherein the defendants had made a mention about the sale.

¶57

The learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Hosur, by her order dated 18.01.2024, dismissed the said application by stating that not only was the application belated but there was also no explanation for the delay which would go to show that the plaintiff was not diligent in prosecuting the case. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court.

¶58

5/8

¶59

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

¶60

C.R.P.PD.No.2681 of 2024

¶61

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

¶62

materials available on record.

¶63

A perusal of the pleadings would clearly show that the plaintiff

¶64

has himself stated that the defendants 11 to 16 were attempting to alienate the suit property. In paragraph 6 of the written statement filed by the 3^rd defendant which was adopted by defendants 2, 4 to 6 and 11, the following statement has been made:

¶65

tHf;Fr; brhj;jpy; xU gFjpia mKjh. ehfty;yp.“ fnzrd;. Mde;jd;. erPh;. re;jpunrfh;. uhkK:h;j;jp. b$fehjd;. a[tuh$; vd;gth;fs; nkhroahf Mtz';fis Vw;gLj;jpa[s;sdh;/ ,e;j MtzkhdJ 2010 Mk; Mz;L rhh;gjptfj;jpy; gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/”

¶66

This written statement has been filed on 19.03.2014. Despite this categoric statement, the plaintiff did not deem it fit to implead the aforesaid persons. In fact, the plaintiff has come forward to amend the plaint as per the order in I.A.No.6 of 2021 dated 14.02.2022 after the

¶67

6/8

¶68

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

¶69

C.R.P.PD.No.2681 of 2024

¶70

sale by defendants 19 to 22 in favour of the 23^rd defendant. Even at that stage, the plaintiff has not deemed it fit to implead the aforesaid parties. Since the plaintiff has been questioned about the nonimpleadment of the aforesaid persons during the cross examination, he has come forward with the application to file up the lacunae. That apart, there was a delay in fling the implead petition particularly when the Sale Deed relating to respondents 19 to 23 is of the year 2010. In fact, in the affidavit filed in support of the very application, the plaintiff has stated that even prior to the filing of the suit, the sale deed had been created by defendants 19 to 23. Therefore, in the light of the above, the order passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Hosur is in order. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

06.03.2025

srn

To

7/8

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

¶76

C.R.P.PD.No.2681 of 2024