Mohammad Habeebul Rahaman, v. Mohammad Khizre Alam,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN Civil Revision Petition No.50 of 2016 Order:

This revision arises out of the dismissal of an application under Order I, Rule 10(2) C.P.C.

2. Heard the learned counsel on both sides.

3. The 1st respondent herein filed the suit against the 2nd respondent, for a bare injunction to protect his alleged possession of the suit schedule property. The 2nd respondent remained ex parte.

4. Contending that they are in possession of the property and that by a collusive suit, the respondents 1 and 2 who are the plaintiff and defendant, are attempting to grab the property in their possession, the petitioners filed an application for impleadment. It was dismissed by the trial Court.

5. In my considered view, the dismissal of the application is in order. Any finding recorded in a suit for bare injunction filed by the 1st respondent against the 2nd respondent is not binding upon the petitioners. If the petitioners are in possession, it is up to the petitioners to file an independent suit against both the respondents herein. In a suit for permanent injunction, filed by the 1st respondent herein against the 2nd respondent, the petitioners cannot get into and establish their independent right.

6. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioners to work out their remedies independently, the revision is dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall stand closed. No costs.

___________________________ V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

08th July, 2016.

Ak HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

Civil Revision Petition No.50 of 2016

08th July, 2016.

(Ak)