Mohammad Ali v. Madanlal Jain

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21.06.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN C.R.P.(P.D.) No.2265 of 2010 1.Mohammad Ali 2.Mumtaz Begum : Petitioners versus 1.Madanlal Jain (exparte) 2.S.Lakshmi 3.Munvar Hussain 4.Farooq Ali 5.Ayyappan Nandakumar 6.Hemavathi 7.Muzavir Ahamad Hareef 8.R.Deepa 9.Murugaraj 10.Lawanya 11.Meharaunnisa 12.Kulasekaran 13.Karthikeyan 14.Rajendran 15.Annapoorani 16.Muniammal 17.Maragathammal 18.Mohana 19.Mekkavan 20.Karunakaran 21.Senthamarai 22.Prema Prakasam 23.Venugopal 24.Veeramani 25.Balaraman 26.Sudha 27.Vijaya 28.Jayaganesh 29.Abibullah 30.Kalpana Krishnamurthi 31.Rahima Gani 32.Murugesan 33.Balaji

34.Venkat Kishore 35.Sudhakar 36.Srinivasan 37.Murugan 38.Thangamuthu 39.Lalitha Meenatchi 40.Balamurugan 41.Somu R.Sundaram 42.Faizi Nazar Ali : Respondents PRAYER: Revision filed against the order passed by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Chengalpattu dated 22.6.2010 in unnumbered I.A.No... of 2010 in O.S.No.53 of 2007.

For petitioners :: Mr.S.Ramesh For respondents :: No appearance for R-2 R-3 to R-42 given up R-1, exparte

O R D E R

The application filed by the petitioners for impleading the subsequent purchaser as a party to the civil suit was rejected by the learned Trial Judge even before registration of the interlocutory application. The said order is under challenged in this civil revision petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears on behalf of the 2nd respondent.

3. The petitioners filed a suit for declaration against the respondents. During the currency of the suit, the second respondent sold the property to the proposed party. The petitioners therefore filed an application to implead the subsequent purchasers.

4. The learned Trial Judge was expected to number the application and thereafter decide the issue on merits. The learned Trial Judge, without even numbering the application, rejected the same, on the ground that the subsequent purchaser is a third party to the proceeding and as such, he is not a necessary party. I do not approve the manner in which the application was dealt with by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu. The question of deciding the matter on merits would arise only after numbering the application. I am therefore of the view that the matter requires fresh consideration.

5. In the result, the order dated 22 June 2010 is set aside. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu is directed to number the application filed by the petitioners and decide the same on merits, after issuing notice to the respondents.

6. The civil revision petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2010 is closed.

21.06.2017 Index:Yes/no tar To The Principal Sub Judge, Chengalpattu

K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.

(tar) C.R.P.(P.D.) No.2265 of 2010 21.06.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in