Disposed¶42

Venkatachalam v. Peri.Periyannan (Died) 1. Mahendran

Madras HC20 Feb 2025CRP(MD)/497/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Impleading application by third party; necessary party; belated application after remand; Article 227 Civil Revision Petition; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Sub Court Devakottai; O.S.No.54 of 2015 pathway declaration and permanent injunction; O.S.No.138 of 2014 declaration of title; common judgment; A.S.No.2 of 2018; A.S.No.19 of 2017; S.A.(MD)No.139 of 2018 remand dated 12.09.2023; second appeal pending at condone delay stage; liberty to work out remedy; no costs; connected C.M.P(MD)No.2775 of 2025 closed.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition disposed of with the above observations; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (C.M.P(MD)No.2775 of 2025) closed; liberty to work out his remedy in the Second Appeal filed against A.S.No.2 of 2018. ¶42

Venkatachalam Vs Peri.Periyannan (Died) 1. Mahendran — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the revision petitioner, a third party to A.S.No.19 of 2017 who had not challenged the common judgment and decree in A.S.No.2 of 2018, is a necessary party entitled to be impleaded as a respondent in A.S.No.19 of 2017 after its remand by the High Court.

¶29

Court's answer

The revision petitioner was aware of the pendency of O.S.No. 138 of 2014 and A.S.No.19 of 2017; therefore, his application to implead himself in A.S.No.19 of 2017 after it was remanded back from the High Court is highly belated and unnecessary.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

The revision petitioner would be entitled to work out his remedy in the Second Appeal filed by him challenging the judgment and decree in A.S.No.2 of 2018.

¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), R. Vijayakumar J. — Impleadment of third party in remanded appeal refused. The revision petitioner, a third party, had filed O.S.No.54 of 2015 (declaration that suit property is a pathway and permanent injunction) while the respondents filed O.S.No.138 of 2014 (declaration of title); both suits were dismissed by a common judgment, as were the cross-appeals A.S.No.2 of 2018 (revision petitioner) and A.S.No.19 of 2017 (respondent). The respondent's S.A.(MD)No.139 of 2018 against A.S.No.19 of 2017 was allowed on 12.09.2023 and the matter remitted to the first appellate Court. The revision petitioner, who had not challenged the judgment in A.S.No.2 of 2018 until then, filed I.A.No.1 of 2024 seeking impleadment as respondent in the remanded A.S.No.19 of 2017; the Sub Judge, Devakottai dismissed it holding he was not a necessary party. Held: the revision petitioner was aware of the pendency of O.S.No. 138 of 2014 and A.S.No.19 of 2017, and his post-remand impleading application was highly belated and unnecessary; however, he would be entitled to work out his remedy in the Second Appeal filed by him against A.S.No.2 of 2018 (pending at the condone delay stage). Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India disposed of; no costs; connected C.M.P(MD)No.2775 of 2025 closed.

¶1

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.497 of 2025

¶2

THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 20.02.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.497 of 2025 and

¶7

C.M.P(MD)No.2775 of 2025

¶8

Venkatachalam ...Petitioner/4^th Petitioner/Third party

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Peri.Periyannan (Died)

¶11

1.Mahendran ...1^st Respondent/2^nd Respondent/2^nd Appellant 2.The Thasildhar, Devakottai Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶12

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.

¶13

4.The District Collector, Sivagangai District.

¶14

...Respondents 2 to 4/Respondents 3 to 5/ Respondents 1 to 3

¶15

5.Alagu @ Alagammal 6.Senthil 7.Baskaran 8.Karthikeyan ...Respondents 5 to 8/Petitioners 1,2,3&5/Third parties

¶16

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

¶17

1/6

¶18

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.497 of 2025

¶19

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order, dated 27.06.2024, made in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in A.S.No.19 of 2017 on the file of learned Sub Judge, Devakottai.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Ananadkumar For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader for R2 to R4 Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan for R1

¶21

ORDER

¶22

A third party to A.S.No.19 of 2017 on the file of the Sub Court,

¶23

Devakottai, is the revision petitioner herein.

¶24

2.The revision petitioner had initially filed O.S.No.54 of 2015, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Devakottai, for the relief of declaration that the suit schedule property therein is a pathway and for permanent injunction. The respondents herein had filed O.S.No.138 of 2014 before the same Court for the relief of declaration of title. Both the suits were tried together and a common judgment was passed dismissing both the suits. The present revision petitioner had filed A.S.No.2 of 2018 and the respondent had filed A.S.No.19 of 2017, before Sub Court, Devakottai. Both the appeals were heard together and by way of common judgment, both the appeals were dismissed. Challenging the

¶25

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

¶26

2/6

¶27

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.497 of 2025

¶28

judgment and decree in A.S.No.19 of 2017, the respondent herein had filed S.A.No.139 of 2018. This Court by judgment and decree, dated 12.09.2023 has allowed the Second Appeal and remitted the matter back to the first appellate Court. However, the revision petitioner has not chosen to challenge the judgment and decree in A.S.No.2 of 2018 till S.A.(MD)No.139 of 2018 was disposed of.

¶29

3.Now, the revision petitioner has chosen to file an impleading application in A.S.No.19 of 2017 after it was remanded by the High Court. This application has been dismissed by the first appellate Court on the ground that when the revision petitioner has not chosen to challenge the judgment and decree in A.S.No.2 of 2018, he is not a necessary party in A.S.No.19 of 2017. Challenging the said order, the present revision petition has been filed.

¶30

4.According to the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, now he has filed Second Appeal challenging the judgment and decree in A.S.No.2 of 2018 and the same is pending in the condone delay stage. In such circumstances, if he is not impleaded as respondent in A.S.No.19 of 2017, it would cause great prejudice to him.

¶31

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

¶32

3/6

¶33

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.497 of 2025

¶34

5.Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents had contended that when the judgment and decree in A.S.No.2 of 2018 had attained finality and he has accepted the dismissal of the suit, he cannot get himself impleaded in A.S.No.19 of 2017 so as to challenge the rights of the plaintiff in the said suit.

¶35

6.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the

¶36

materials available on record.

¶37

7.The present revision petitioner was aware of the pendency of O.S.No. 138 of 2014 and A.S.No.19 of 2017. In such circumstances, the present application by the revision petitioner to implead himself in A.S.No.19 of 2017 after it has been remanded back from the High Court is highly belated and it is an unnecessary application. However, the revision petitioner would be entitled to work out his remedy in the Second Appeal filed by him.

¶38

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

¶39

4/6

¶40

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.497 of 2025

¶41

8.With the above said observations, this Civil Revision Petition stands

¶42

disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶43

20.02.2025

¶44

Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No RJR

¶45

¶46

The learned Sub Judge, Devakottai.

¶47

Copy to:- The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶48

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

¶49

5/6

¶50

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.497 of 2025

¶51

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

¶52

RJR

¶53

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.497 of 2025

¶54

20.02.2025

¶55

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

¶56

6/6

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Fair and decretal order dated 27.06.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in A.S.No.19 of 2017, by which the first appellate Court dismissed the revision petitioner's impleading application on the ground that, having not challenged the judgment and decree in A.S.No.2 of 2018, he was not a necessary party in A.S.No.19 of 2017.¶19
learned Sub Judge, Devakottai (Sub Court, Devakottai) · 27.06.2024
Prior proceeding
Revision petitioner filed O.S.No.54 of 2015 before the District Munsif Court, Devakottai seeking declaration that the suit schedule property is a pathway and for permanent injunction.¶24
Prior proceeding
The respondents herein filed O.S.No.138 of 2014 before the same Court for declaration of title.¶24
Prior proceeding
Both suits were tried together and dismissed by a common judgment.¶24
Prior proceeding
Revision petitioner filed A.S.No.2 of 2018 and the respondent filed A.S.No.19 of 2017 before Sub Court, Devakottai.¶24
Prior proceeding
Both appeals were heard together and dismissed by a common judgment.¶24
Prior proceeding
The respondent filed S.A.No.139 of 2018 challenging the judgment and decree in A.S.No.19 of 2017.¶28
Prior proceeding
By judgment and decree dated 12.09.2023, this Court allowed the Second Appeal and remitted the matter back to the first appellate Court.¶28
Prior proceeding
The revision petitioner did not challenge the judgment and decree in A.S.No.2 of 2018 until S.A.(MD)No.139 of 2018 was disposed of.¶28
Prior proceeding
After remand, the revision petitioner filed an impleading application (I.A.No.1 of 2024) in A.S.No.19 of 2017.¶29
Prior proceeding
The first appellate Court dismissed the impleading application, holding the revision petitioner was not a necessary party since he had not challenged the judgment and decree in A.S.No.2 of 2018.¶29
Prior proceeding
According to the revision petitioner, he has now filed a Second Appeal against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.2 of 2018, pending at the condone delay stage.¶30

Venkatachalam v. Peri.Periyannan (Died) 1. Mahendran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkatachalam v. Peri.Periyannan (Died) 1. Mahendran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Elangovan Vs N. Mala

Ravi Vs M.Sharafitheen Ahmed

L.Harigopalakrishnan Vs K.Sathiyamoorthy

Sakthivel(died) Vs Arumugam

Syed Ahamed Kabir Vs Naina Mohammed Shahibu (Died) 1. Thurthoon Nabisha

F.Asha Rositta Vs P.S.Rema