P.Mohana v. Sathya Narayanan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 21.11.2016

CORAM

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.K.Sasidharan C.R.P.(PD)No.2795 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.14247 of 2016 1.P.Mohana 2.K.Kalavathy

...Petitioners

Vs.

1. Sathya Narayanan

2. Jayanthi

3. Usha

4. Minor Jayasuriya

5. Minor Nanjitha (minor fourth and fifth respondents are rep. by their mother and natural guardian/R-3/Usha.

6. Sathyamoorthy

7. Venu

8. Kannan

9. Gunasekaran 10.Suresh 11.Gowri Ammal ... Respondents Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order and decreetal order dated 25.11.2015, in I.A.No.384

of 2015, in O.S.No.51 of 2010, on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Kanchipuram.

For Petitioners :

Mr.R.Chandrasudan For Respondents 1 and 2 :

Mr.R.C.Manaoharan For Respondents 6-11 :

Mr.Y.Jyothishchander

O R D E R

The petitioners filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.384 of 2015, in O.S.No.51 of 2010, for impleading them as plaintiffs along with respondents 3 to 5 herein.

2.

The Application was partly allowed by the trial Court, whereby and whereunder, the respondents 3 to 5 were impleaded as plaintiffs. The Application was dismissed in respect of the petitioners. The said Order is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition. 3.

When the Civil Revision Petition is taken up for consideration today, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that, being the present plaintiffs in the Suit, the respondents 1 and 2 have no objection in making the petitioners also as parties to the Suit as plaintiffs along with

others. The learned counsel further contended that the respondents 1 and 2 would file appropriate Application before the trial Court to declare the title of the petitioners and respondents 1 to 5.

4. The Application in I.A.No.384 of 2015 was dismissed in part on account of the plaint averments, wherein, a contention was taken by the deceased plaintiff that he alone is entitled to the property in question. Now that the legal representatives have made it clear that they have no objection in impleading the petitioners also and that they would amend the plaint and would take up a plea of declaration of title on behalf of all the impleaded plaintiffs. I am of the view that necessarily the impugned Order passed by the learned trial Judge should be set aside.

5.

The Order, dated 25.11.2015, is set aside. The petitioners are impleaded as plaintiff Nos.6 and 7. The respondents 1 and 2 are permitted to file appropriate Application to amend the plaint. In case, any such amendment is made, necessarily, the respondents 6 to 11 shall be given an opportunity to file additional written statement.

6.

The Civil Revision Petition is allowed to the extent, indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

21.11.2016 sd Index : Yes/No Internet ; Yes/No To The Principal District Munsif, Kanchipuram.

K.K.Sasidharan,J., sd C.R.P.(PD)No.2795 of 2016 21.11.2016 http://www.judis.nic.in