Dismissed

Mrs.Shanthi @ Yazhini, v. Hari krishnan and 2 others

Madras HC28 Apr 2026A/951/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application to implead a deleted vendor as a necessary party in a pending eviction suit, the High Court of Madras dismissed the prayer. The Court held that the deletion was based on the plaintiff's own statement that no relief was claimed against the deleted defendant, and allowing re-impleadment would only cause delay without legal necessity.

What did the court decide?

Application for impleadment of the deleted first defendant as third defendant is dismissed with no costs.

Mrs.Shanthi @ Yazhini, Vs Hari krishnan and 2 others — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

A.No.951 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 28-04-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶6

A No. 951 of 2026 in

¶7

C.S. No. 345 of 2019

¶8

Mrs.Shanthi @ Yazhini, W/O.M.BASKER, NO.21/33, APPU STREET, MYLAPORE, CH-4.

¶9

..Applicant(s)

¶10

¶11

Hari krishnan S/o.S.Kabali, No.14, Ramakrishnapuram 5th Street, Mylapore, Chennai 4.

¶12

M.S.Basker S/o.Late.K.Muthusamy, Old No.21, New No.33, Appu Street, Mylapore, Chennai-60004

¶13

Mr.M.S.Chandrasekar alias Kevin Chandrasekar S/o.Late K.Muthusamy, No.4/28, Muthu Soali Street, Teylors Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010.

¶14

..Respondent(s)

¶15

To implead the 3rd Respondent herein as 3rd Defendant in the above

¶16

suit.

¶17

For Applicant(s): M/S.Sankarasubbu For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Arun Kumar

¶18

1/6

¶19

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

A.No.951 of 2026

ORDER

Heard.

This application has been filed by the second defendant, who was originally impleaded as the fourth defendant, seeking to implead M.S. Chandrasekar @ Kevin Chandrasekar, the deleted first defendant, once again as the third defendant in the suit.

¶24

The suit was originally filed against four defendants. The proposed party had been served with summons, remained ex parte, and later filed A.No.2564 of 2025 to condone the delay of 1128 days in seeking to set aside the ex parte decree. When the said application was taken up on 28.07.2025, the plaintiff filed a memo stating that no relief had been claimed against defendants 1 and 2, that they were only the vendors of the plaintiff, and that the suit was substantially against the other defendants. Recording the memo, this Court directed deletion of defendants 1 and 2 and consequential amendment of the plaint.

¶25

Thereafter, the present applicant filed this application to implead the deleted first defendant once again, contending that he is a necessary and proper party. The

¶26

2/6

¶27

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

¶28

A.No.951 of 2026 Registry had returned the papers in view of the earlier deletion order. However, the matter was directed to be numbered and placed before the Court for decision on merits.

¶29

The plaintiff has opposed the application. In the counter, it is stated that the proposed party had already been on record, had been duly served with suit summons, had allowed himself to be set ex parte, and was later deleted only because the plaintiff had given up the suit as against him and the other deleted defendant. According to the plaintiff, the suit is one for eviction and consequential reliefs against the present contesting defendant in respect of the plaintiff’s 50% share purchased under the sale deed dated 25.11.2016 from the deleted defendant and his mother.

¶30

The plaintiff has further stated that he had paid consideration far in excess of the document value, and that the deleted defendant and his mother had given statements during criminal investigation supporting the sale transaction. It is also pleaded that the present application is only an attempt to protract the suit. The plaintiff points out that, when the present applicant was impleaded in 2021, her counsel had undertaken that no further application would be filed pending disposal of the suit. However, she thereafter filed A.No.5282 of 2023 for rejection of plaint, 3/6

¶31

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

¶32

A.No.951 of 2026 which was dismissed, and has again filed the present application. The plaintiff, therefore, contends that the deleted vendor is neither a necessary nor a proper party.

¶33

On consideration of the materials, this Court is of the view that the application cannot be entertained. By order dated 28.07.2025, this Court accepted the plaintiff’s statement that no relief was sought against defendants 1 and 2 and directed their deletion from the array of parties. That order was not passed behind the back of the proposed party. It was passed while considering his own application in A.No.2564 of 2025. The application was closed on the specific footing that the plaintiff had given up the suit as against defendants 1 and 2.

¶34

The present applicant cannot, by filing a fresh impleading application, indirectly reopen the effect of the order dated 28.07.2025. Further, on the plaintiff’s own case, the deleted defendant is only the vendor from whom the plaintiff traces title. After amendment, no relief is sought against him.

¶35

The test for impleadment is whether the presence of the party is necessary for effective adjudication of the real controversy in the suit. The present controversy is whether the plaintiff, as purchaser, is entitled to recovery of 4/6

¶36

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

¶37

A.No.951 of 2026

¶38

possession and other consequential reliefs against the surviving defendants. That issue can be decided on the pleadings, documents, and evidence already available. If the evidence of the deleted defendant is necessary, it is always open to the plaintiff to summon him as a witness.

¶39

The suit has been pending for a long time. The plaintiff’s evidence has been completed, defendants’ evidence has commenced, and the proposed party had earlier remained ex parte despite service. Reintroducing him as a party at this stage would only reopen matters already settled procedurally and cause further delay, without serving any legal necessity.

¶40

Accordingly, A.No.951 of 2026 is dismissed. No costs.

¶41

28-04-2026

¶42

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶43

¶44

5/6

¶45

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

¶46

A.No.951 of 2026

¶47

DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.

¶48

¶49

A No. 951 of 2026 in C.S. No. 345 of 2019

¶50

28-04-2026

¶51

6/6

¶52

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

Mrs.Shanthi @ Yazhini, v. Hari krishnan and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.Shanthi @ Yazhini, v. Hari krishnan and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar Golecha Vs Sohanrajji Zamad and 10 others

Pachaiyappas Trust Board Vs The Advocate General of Tamil Nadu

Vaijayanthi Vs No Respondent

R.Ram Lal Vs R.Rathigunam and 2 Others

P. Ramana Reddy Vs P. Raju

Susila and 3 others Vs No Respondent