Venkatesan v. Kaliaperumal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 18.11.2019 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY C.R.P.(PD).No.4279 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 Venkatesan ... Petitioner v.

1. Kaliyaperumal

2. Muniammal

3. Loganathan

4. Sathish

5. Thangarasu

6. Rajagopal

7. Natarajan

8. Andal

9. Adi Kesava Gounder

10. Venu Gounder

11. Krishna Gounder

12. Lakshmana Gounder

13. Narayanan

14. Srinivasan

15. Suresh

16. Murugan

17. Mageswari

18. Sambasivam

19. Angammal

20. Kalai Selvi Page 1 / 5

21. Kanchana

22. Kandan

23. Rajendran

24. Prabakaran

25. Vijaya

26. Prabhu

27. Ramya

28. Jansi Rani ... Respondents Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Cosntitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated12.07.2013 passed in I.A.No.335 of 2012 in O.S.No.32 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Gingee.

For Petitioner : Mrs. Aswini Devi for Mr.Rajaraman For Respondents : Mr.T.S. Basaran

ORDER

Challenging the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.335 of 2012 in O.S.No.32 of 2010 on the file of the on the file of the Sub Court, Gingee, the 4th defendant has filed the above Civil Revision Petition. Page 2 / 5

2. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.32 of 2010 for partition and for other reliefs. The defendants filed their written statement and are contesting the suit. In the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application in I.A.No.335 of 2012 under Order I Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code to implead the respondents 16 to 25 as defendants 16 to 25 as the legal representatives of the 7th defendant.

3. The Trial Court, taking into consideration the case of both the parties, allowed the application on payment of cost of Rs.2,000/-.

4. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the 7th defendant had died even prior to the filing of the suit. In such circumstances, the plaintiff filed an application to implead the legal representatives of the deceased 7th defendant.

5. It is not in dispute that the proposed defendants 16 to 25 are the legal representatives of the deceased 7th defendant. When the proposed parties are the legal representatives of the deceased 7th Page 3 / 5

defendant, in a suit for partition, they are also necessary parties for proper adjudication of the matter. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly allowed the application to implead them as defendants 16 to 25.

6. In these circumstances, I do not find any error or irregularity in the order passed by the Trial Court. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

18.11.2019.

Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non Speaking Order Rj To The Sub Court, Gingee.

Page 4 / 5

M.DURAISWAMY, J.

Rj C.R.P.(PD).No.4279 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 18.11.2019 Page 5 / 5