← Library
Madras High CourtCRP/3122/2026disposed of

Oumarani Cannane v. Cogoulane Cannane (Died) 1.Malathi Sivakumar

2026-06-09Honourable Mr Justice Abdul Quddhose4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE and C.M.P.No.13540 of 2026 Oumarani Cannane ... Petitioner Vs.

Cogoulane Cannane (Died) 1.Malathi Sivakumar 2.Anndjaly Emilie Cannane 3.Rishi Samuel Cannane 4.Aiswarya Amelie Cannane ... Respondents Prayer : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to call for the records and set aside the order dated 04.03.2026 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in O.S.No.139 of 2024 by the Principal District Judge, Puducherry.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.S.Senthilkumar For Respondents : Notice dispensed with *****

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.139 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Distirct Court, Puducherry, Page No.1 of 4

challenging the order, dated 04.03.2026 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in O.S.No.139 of 2024 allowing the application filed by the respondents 1 to 4.

2. Since no adverse order is passed against the respondents in this civil revision petition, notice to the respondents is dispensed with by this Court.

3. According to the petitioner, the respondents 1 to 4 are unnecessary parties to the suit in O.S.No.139 of 2024. The petitioner claims that the respondents have got no legal right over the suit schedule property. The said suit was filed for partition by the petitioner's brother, who died during the pendency of the said suit. The petitioner has raised several defences in the counter filed in the impleading application filed by the respondents 1 to 4 before the trial court in I.A.No.3 of 2025. The grievance of the petitioner in this revision is that those defences were not considered by the trial court, while allowing the impleading application in I.A.No.3 of 2025, which is the subject matter of this revision.

4. Having allowed the impleading application filed by the respondents 1 to 4, the question of interfering with the impugned order at this stage in this revision is unnecessary. The interest of the petitioner in this revision will be adequately protected, if the trial court is directed to consider all the defences Page No.2 of 4

raised by the petitioner in the main suit, which includes the defences raised by the petitioner through her counter filed in the impleading application in I.A.No.3 of 2025.

5. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is not interfering with the impugned order, at this stage. Instead, this Court, directs the trial court, namely the Principal District Court, Puducherry, to consider the objections raised by the petitioner for the impleadment of the respondents 1 to 4 in the suit through I.A.No.3 of 2025, when deciding the main suit, after trial.

6. With the above direction, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 09.06.2026 Index : Yes / No (2/2) Speaking order / Non-speaking order sp To The Principal District Court, Puducherry.

Page No.3 of 4

ABDUL QUDDHOSE , J.

sp 09.06.2026 (2/2) Page No.4 of 4