← Library
Madras High CourtCRP/3834/2023allowed

D.Baby v. R.Yogammal (Died) 1. S.Rajkumar

2023-10-20Honourable Mrs Justice T.V.Thamilselvi5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 20.10. 2023

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI CRP No. 3834 of 2023 & CMP No. 23725of 2023 D.Baby (Deceased G.Latha

...Petitioner

Vs.

Selvi R. Yogammal (Died) 1.S.Rajkumar 2.S.Tamizhvanan 3.S.Vasan 4.P.R.Rajendran 5.M.Dakshinamoorthy ....Respondents 6.K.Karthikeyan 7.C.Chandrasekar 8.C.Dhandapani 9.Ethiraj 10.Monika 11.Sakuntala 12.K.Rajendiran 13.K.Balasubramanian 14.K.Ravikumar 15.Dharmalingam 16.D.Saraswathi 17.D.Santhi

18.D.Mallika 19.D.Saridha 20.D.Sathiya 21.Prabavathy 22.D.Kumar 23.D.Venkatesan 24.D.Murugan 25.N.Usha 26.N.Arun 27.N.Sathish 28.N.Priya ...Proposed respondents.

PRAYER : This petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed by 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore at Tirupattur dated 09.06.2023 in I.A No. 62 of 2017 in O.S No. 39 of 2015.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramesh

ORDER

Challenging the impugned order dated 09.06.2023 passed by the 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore at Tirupattur in I.A No. 62 of 2017 in O.S No. 39 of 2015, the petitioner filed this petition.

2. The petitioner herein filed I.A No. 62 of 2017 in O.S No. 39 of 2015, on the file of the 3rd Additional District and Sessions Court, to implead the respondents 7 to 29/proposed parties as 7 to 29 defendants in

the suit. After considering the submissions on either side, the Court below dismissed the said application stating that the petitioner filed the said petition in order to drag on the proceedings. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed this petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit in O.S No. 39 of 2015 was filed for partition and other consequential relief, hence the petitioner is entitle to implead all the parties who are necessary to adjudicate the issue but without considering the above the Court below erroneously dismissed I.A No. 62 of 2017 in O.S No. 39 of 2015 filed to implead the necessary parties. Hence, he prays to allow this petition.

4. On perusal of records, the petitioner filed a suit for partition against the defendants 1 to 6 and also the defendants in their written statements have taken specific plea that the suit is bad for non joinder of the proposed parties. Hence, the petitioner filed the said application to implead the proposed parties as defendants but the same was dismissed. This Court is of the view that the suit is at trial stage hence the impleading the parties would not cause any prejudice to the respondents but the Court below failed to appreciate these legal aspects and erroneously dismissed I.A No. 62 of 2017. Therefore, the order passed by the 3rd Additional District and Sessions

Court, Vellor at Tiruppatur in I.A No. 62 of 2017 in O.S No. 39 of 2015 is set aside. Accordingly, I.A No. 62 of 2017 is allowed. Further, the Trial Court is directed to allow the respondents to file a additional written statement and also issue notice to the respondents to that effect.

5. In result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No Cost. Consequentially, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 20.10.2023 pbl

T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.

Pbl To

1. The 3rd Additional District and Sessions Court, Vellor at Tiruppatur CRP No. 3834 of 2023 & CMP No. 23725of 2023 20.10.2023