Madras High CourtCRP(MD)/1013/2015dismissed

P.R.P.Exports, v. G.Anbuselvan,

2015-06-02Honourable Mr Justice K.K. Sasidharan2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.06.2015

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1013 of 2015 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2015 P.R.P.Experts a registered partnership firm rep.by through it's Partner P.Suresh Kumar Therkutheru Village Melur Taluk, Madurai District

...Petitioner / Petitioner /

Proposed Party -vs1.G.Anbuselvan President Makkal Nala Iyakkam Door No.160/8 Lake Area, Melur Road Uthangudi, Madurai District 2.Selvam 3.Ravichandran 4.P.Natarajan 5.N.Ganesan 6.N.Kannan 7.N.Kala

...Respondents / Respondents /

Plaintiffs & Defendants PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order, dated 23.01.2015, made in I.A.No.415 of 2013 in O.S.No.986 of 2012, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Jeyam

O R D E R

The petitioner filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.415 of 2013 to implead the firm as a party to the proceedings in O.S.No.986 of 2012. The application was dismissed by the Trial Court. The order, dated 23 January, 2015 is under challenge in this civil revision petition.

2. The respondents 1 to 3 filed a suit against the respondents 4 to 7 alleging that attempt was made to obstruct the common pathway. The respondents 1 to 3 laid the suit on the basis of the cause of action which arose to them on account of the alleged trespass made by the respondents 4 to 7. The petitioner wanted to implead as party to the proceedings on the ground that they have purchased a portion of the property. The petitioner before the Trial Court miserably failed to prove that the firm is a necessary party for an effective adjudication of the suit in O.S.No.986 of 2012. The Trial Court considered the issue in the light of the pleadings and rightly negatived the contentions taken by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

the petitioner. I do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the learned Trial Judge. The order does not warrant interference by exercising revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. In the upshot, I dismiss the civil revision petition. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(T&P) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To:

The Principal Subordinate Judge, Principal Subordinate Court, Madurai.

+1cc to Mr.D.Jeyam, Advocate in SR.No.27295 C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1013 of 2015 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2015 02.06.2015 krk PBK/PS 18/06/2015 ::2P-3C::

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/