Madras High CourtCRP(MD)/1605/2013dismissed

V.Sundaramoorthy, v. Raman,

2015-01-22Honourable Mrs Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22/01/2015

CORAM

THE HON`BLE MRS JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA CRP PD(MD)No.1605 of 2013 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2013 V.SUNDARAMOORTHY, ... REVISION PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF/1ST RESPONDENT - Vs. - 1 RAMAN, 2 INSPECTOR GENERAL, REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI.

3 DISTRICT REGISTRAR, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.

... RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANT Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 11.07.2013 made in I.A.No.50 of 2013 in O.S.No.32 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Paramakudi.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Siva Thilakar For Respondents : Mr.A.Arumugam for M/s.Ajmal Associates for R1 No Appearance for RR2 and 3 ----

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the District Munsif Court, Paramakudi. allowing the petition to implead the proposed parties to the suit.

2.The suit is filed for a mandatory injunction, directing the first and second defendants to take action against the former incumbents of Paramakudy Vaniyar Uravin Muraiyarkalin Pothu Sabai whose activities are against the provision of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. 3.The first respondent herein, who is the third defendant had filed an application to implead the fourth and fifth defendants, who are the proposed parties. The proposed parties are Paramakudy Vaniyar Uravin Muraiyarkalin Pothu Sabai, represented by the president and the fifth proposed party is the Secretary.

4.It is contended by the learned counsel for the first respondent, who has taken out the application for impleadment that when the action is sought for against the officials of Sabai, it is necessary https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

that Sabai is also represented in the suit. Therefore, any action that may be taken against the office bearers of Sabai should be made in the presence of Sabai.

5.The trial court, allowed the application, as the proposed parties are proper and necessary parties and their presence is necessary for final adjudication. No doubt, no relief was sought against them, but the relief is fo a direction to take action against the office bearers of the Sabai. Therefore, I see no irregularity in the order passed by the learned District Munsif in allowing the impleading petition. 6.In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(T & P) \\True copy\\ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Distrit Munsif, Paramakudi.

+1 CC TO M/S.S.SIVA THILAKAR, ADVOCATE SR.NO.2947 CRP PD(MD)No.1605 of 2013 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2013 DATED : 22/01/2015 MVS NA/03/02/2015/P2/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/