Madras High CourtCRP(MD)/280/2026dismissed with cost

Ramapriya v. A.Balasubramanian

2026-02-03Honourable Mr.Justice N.Senthilkumar5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 03.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR C.R.P(MD). No.280 of 2026 and C.M.P(MD) No.1172 of 2026 Ramapriya ... Petitioner Vs 1.A.Balasubramanian 2.S.Karuppasamy ... Respondents PRAYER :-Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order passed in unnumbered I.A.No... of 2025 in O.S.No.18 of 2024 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Watrap, Virudhunagar District, dated 12.11.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sudharani 1/5

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed in an unnumbered I.A. of 2025 in O.S. No.18 of 2024 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Watrap, Virudhunagar District, dated 12.11.2025.

2. The petitioner filed an application seeking to implead herself as the second defendant in the suit. The trial Court, on consideration of the averments, found that the petitioner claimed to be a tenant under the original tenant. The trial Court further held that such a claim would amount to sub-tenancy, which is impermissible in law and therefore, the petitioner has no independent right to seek impleadment.

3. The trial Court also observed that the application was filed at a highly belated stage, when the suit was posted for judgment and concluded that the same was only intended to protract the proceedings. Accordingly, the application was rejected as not maintainable. 2/5

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner is, in fact, a direct tenant under the landlord/first respondent and that the trial Court has misconstrued the facts by treating her as a sub-tenant.

5. This Court is of the view that such disputed questions regarding the nature of tenancy cannot be adjudicated at this stage in a collateral proceeding. In any event, the application for impleadment has been filed at the stage when the suit was posted for judgment, which clearly indicates that it is an attempt to delay the proceedings and prevent the pronouncement of judgment.

6. This Court finds that the trial Court has rightly rejected the application. No infirmity or illegality is made out warranting interference.

7. Considering the stage at which the application has been filed and the nature of the claim, this Court is of the opinion that the petition is 3/5

vexatious and deserves to be dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to the credit of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Advocate Welfare Fund (A/c.No.7087208431, IFSC Code: IDIB000H040), Indian Bank, High Court Branch, Madurai Bench Campus, Madurai) within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. 03.02.2026 Indu 4/5

N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

Indu 03.02.2026 5/5