Disposed¶54

N.Duraisamy v. Shanthi

Madras HC17 Dec 2025CRP(MD)/3819/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Impleading of third party in pending suit; Order I Rule 10 CPC discretionary power; necessary and proper party; dominus litis objection; bare/permanent injunction suit; rival claim of possession; avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings; limitation plea against impleading application left to trial Court; Article 227 civil revision; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Manapparai; O.S.No.283 of 2010; I.A.No.2 of 2023; CMP(MD) No.20108 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition disposed of without interfering with the trial Court's impleading order; liberty to the petitioner to raise the ground of limitation and the prejudice caused before the trial Court; title disputes, if any, to be agitated by way of a separate suit; no costs; connected Miscellaneous Petition (CMP(MD) No.20108 of 2025) closed. ¶54

N.Duraisamy Vs Shanthi — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 23.10.2025 passed by the trial Court allowing I.A.No.2 of 2023 (impleading application of the first respondent under Order I Rule 10 CPC) in O.S.No.283 of 2010 should be set aside. +2 more

¶22

Court's answer

The first respondent/proposed party is a necessary and proper party in whose presence only the suit could be adjudicated effectually and completely; the Court therefore does not interfere with the order passed by the Court below.

¶53

Ratio / Principle

The right to implead a party under Order I Rule 10 CPC is discretionary in nature, to be exercised judiciously based on the stage of proceedings and the necessity of such party for a proper adjudication of the suit.

¶37

Key takeaways

Since the first respondent/proposed party claims possession of the suit property and the plaintiff has filed a suit for bare injunction, even if the plaintiff obtains a decree he would have to take steps for recovery of possession from the proposed party; her application contending possession justifies that she is a necessary and proper party to the suit.ratio¶41
The question of possession is common to the parties to the suit and the third party/proposed party and can be settled in the suit itself; the provision warrants a liberal construction enabling the Court to determine all questions relating to the subject matter once and for all in the presence of all parties necessary or proper for effective and final adjudication, thereby avoiding multiplicity of proceedings.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 23.10.2025 of the Principal District Munsif Court, Manapparai, allowing I.A.No.2 of 2023 under Order I Rule 10 CPC impleading the first respondent (a third party claiming possession) as defendant in O.S.No.283 of 2010, a suit for permanent injunction filed in 2010: HELD, the right to implead a party under Order I Rule 10 CPC is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously having regard to the stage of proceedings and the necessity of the party; where the proposed party claims possession of the suit property and the suit is for bare injunction, the question of possession is common to the parties and the third party and can be settled in the suit itself, avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and ensuring complete and effectual adjudication; no prejudice is caused to the plaintiff by such impleading; the first respondent is a necessary and proper party. The plea of limitation, raised for the first time before the High Court, is left to be adjudicated by the trial Court, with liberty to the petitioner; title disputes are to be agitated in a separate suit. Civil Revision Petition disposed of; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs.

¶1

CRP(MD). No.3819 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 17.12.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶6

CRP(MD). No.3819 of 2025 and CMP(MD) No.20108 of 2025

N.Duraisamy

... Petitioner

1.Shanthi

2.The District Collector, Collectorate, Trichy District.

¶12

3.The Tahsildar, Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District.

¶13

4.The Commissioner, Manapparai Municipality, Manapparai, Trichy District.

¶14

5.The Chairman, Manapparai Municipality, Manapparai, Trichy District. ... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER :-Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated

¶16

1/9

¶17

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

¶18

District.

¶19

CRP(MD). No.3819 of 2025

¶20

23.10.2025 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in OS.No.283 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif Court, Manapparai, Trichy District.

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23.10.2025 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in OS.No.283 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Manapparai, Trichy District.

¶23

2 .The petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.283 of 2010 for

¶24

the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the respondents 2 to 5/defendants, their men, agents, servants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property in any manner along with other reliefs. Pending suit, the first respondent, who is a third party to the suit, filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.2 of 2023 under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking to implead herself as defendant in the suit. The trial Court had allowed the IA., vide order, dated 23.10.2025. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

¶25

2/9

¶26

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

¶27

CRP(MD). No.3819 of 2025

¶28

3 .The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is for

¶29

the petitioner/plaintiff to choose who has to be made as a party in the suit as defendant and the petitioner has not sought for any relief as against the first respondent/proposed party, as she is neither a necessary party nor a proper party for adjudication of the suit. He would further submit that since the petitioner is a dominus litus, he cannot be forced to join the proposed party as defendant and the addition of the proposed party would also enlarge the issue in the suit.

¶30

4.He would further submit that though the suit had been filed in the year 2010, the first respondent has filed an application claiming title over the suit property for impleading herself as one of the defendants in the suit after a period of 13 years ie., in the year 2023, which is clearly barred by limitation. However, without considering all those facts properly, the trial Court had allowed the application filed by the first respondent, vide order dated 23.10.2025, stating that failure to allow the impleading application would amount to cause great prejudice to the first respondent's/proposed party's right. Hence, he called upon this Court to set aside the impugned order and grant relief as prayed for.

¶31

3/9

¶32

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

¶33

CRP(MD). No.3819 of 2025

¶34

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since no adverse

¶35

order is going to be passed against the respondents, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.

¶36

6.Admittedly, the petitioner filed O.S.No.283 of 2010 for permanent injunction along with other reliefs. Pending suit, the first respondent, who is a third party to the suit, filed I.A.No.2 of 2023 seeking to implead herself as defendant in the suit. The trial Court had allowed the IA., vide order, dated 23.10.2025 on the ground that the first respondent's right would be prejudiced in the event of not allowing the impleading application.

¶37

7.As far as the learned counsel for the petitioner's contention that the first respondent is neither a necessary party nor a proper party for adjudication of the suit, as the petitioner has not sought for any relief as r against her, is concerned, ight to implead a party under Order I Rule 10 CPC is discretionary in nature, to be exercised judiciously based on the stage of proceedings and the necessity of such party for a proper adjudication of the suit.

¶38

4/9

¶39

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

¶40

CRP(MD). No.3819 of 2025

¶41

8 .It is the specific case of the first respondent/proposed party that she has been in possession and enjoyment of the property for more than time immemorial. Even assuming that the plaintiff would get a decree in the suit, necessarily he has to take steps for recovery of possession of the suit property from the first respondent/proposed party. At that time, the possession sought for by the petitioner/plaintiff would be resisted/objected to by the proposed party. Of course, the remedy is always open and available to the proposed party to resist the said action as and when the petitioner/plaintiff comes forward with an application to take possession of the suit property, but one does not know when it will happen. Now, the proposed party having come to know that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit for bare injunction has filed an application contending that she is in possession of the property, and thereby she justifies that she is necessary and proper party to the suit.

¶42

9.As it has already been pointed out that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction, but the first respondent/proposed party claims possession of the suit property, the issue with regard to the

¶43

5/9

¶44

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

¶45

CRP(MD). No.3819 of 2025

¶46

possession is common to the parties to the suit and to third party, namely, the proposed party and the same can be settled in the suit itself. In order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and for complete and effectual adjudication in respect of all the questions involved in the suit, this provision finds place in CPC. The intendment and object of the provision as could be gathered from the language used therein appears to me to adopt a liberal construction to enable the Court to determine all the questions relating to the subject matter of the suit arising not only between the parties to the suit but once and for all in the presence of all those parties, whose presence is necessary or proper for an effective and final adjudication.

¶47

10.I am also of the view that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner/plaintiff by adding the first respondent/proposed party. If the first respondent/proposed party is not added, at the time of taking possession of the property in the event of petitioner/plaintiff succeeds in the suit, the first respondent/proposed party would resist and object for taking up possession and in the said event both the parties have to

¶48

6/9

¶49

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

¶50

CRP(MD). No.3819 of 2025

¶51

approach the Court once again and hence the same could be avoided by impleading the first respondent as party to the present suit.

¶52

11.Though the plea that the present application has to be rejected on the ground of limitation has not been raised before the trial Court and has been raised before this Court for the first time, the same has to be adjudicated before the trial Court, as no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner/plaintiff in allowing the application to implead the first respondent/third party.

¶53

12.In the said circumstances, I am of the view that the first respondent/proposed party is necessary and proper party, in whose presence only the suit could be adjudicated effectually and completely and therefore, I do not propose to interfere with the order passed by the Court below.

¶54

13.In fine, the Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to raise the ground of limitation before the trial Court and the prejudice caused to them. If the parties are questioning the

¶55

7/9

¶56

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

¶57

CRP(MD). No.3819 of 2025

¶58

suit.

¶59

title, it has to be agitated before the trial Court by way of filing a separate

¶60

suit. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.