C.Gandhi, S/O.Chellaiah Konar, v. Ponnambalam,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.08.2018 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN C.R.P.(MD)No.1333 of 2016 and C.M.P.(MD).Nos.6389 and 6390 of 2016 C.Gandhi .. Petitioner/ Petitioner/ Plaintiff vs.

1.Ponnambalam 2.Rakkammal 3.Kannuchamy 4.Kunjaram 5.Revathi 6.Sharmila 7.Meenatchi 8.Sikappi .. 1 to 8 Respondents/ 1 to 8 Respondents/ Defendants 9.Karuppaiah .. Proposed Respondent / Respondent /3rd Party PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order, dated 19.06.2014 made in I.A.No.231 of 2014 in O.S.No.8 of 2013, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivagangai District. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondent Nos.1 & 9 : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan For Respondent Nos.2,4,5 and 8 : No appearance For Respondent No.6 : Left For Respondent Nos.3 and 7 : Deceased

ORDER

The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.8 of 2013 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Sivagangai. It is a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. There are already 8 defendants in the suit. The revision petitioner filed I.A.No.231 of 2014 for impleading the proposed party. The Court below dismissed the said IA by order, dated 19.06.2014. The correctness of the said order is under challenge.

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterated the grounds set out in the memorandum. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 9 wanted this Court to sustain the order passed by the Court below.

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

4. This Court is of the view that the Court below is right in holding that the proposed party is not a necessary party to the suit proceedings. Even according to the revision petitioner, the proposed party is only a mortgagee under the first defendant. It appears that the said encumbrance took place the pendency of the suit. This Court is of the view that the proposed party cannot claim a right beyond or above the first defendant. He is necessarily bound by the outcome of the present suit proceedings. His presence is not necessary for adjudicating the issues raised in the suit. The reasons stated by the Court below are right and justified. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-III) To

1. The District Munsif, Sivagangai District.

2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. ( 2 copies) +1CC to Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Advocate, SR.No.79084 C.R.P.(MD)No.1333 of 2016 16.08.2018 PJL ES/SV/SAR 3/17.09.2018/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/