N. S. Mariappan v. R. Arumugam ( Died) 1. Kodhandaraman,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 29.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR and CMP(MD) No.911 of 2026 1.N.S.Mariappan 2.M.Ponnammal 3.M.Anandavalli ... Petitioners Vs R.Arumugam ( Died) 1.Kodhandaraman 2.M.Dhanalakshmi 3.T.Petchaiammal 4.Balameenakshi ... Respondents PRAYER :-Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.22 of 2022 on the file of the III Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai Town dated 25.11.2025. For Petitioners : Mr.F.X.Eugene 1/6
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25.11.2025 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.22 of 2022 on the file of the III Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai Town. 2.The suit in O.S.No.22 of 2022 had originally been filed by one Arumugam before the III Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai Town, seeking for the relief of declaration along with other reliefs. Pending suit, the said Arumugam died and therefore, the respondents 1 to 3 herein have filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.2 of 2024 under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking to implead themselves as plaintiffs 2 to 4, to implead the fourth respondent therein as fourth defendant in the suit and to record the third defendant as legal representative of the deceased sole plaintiff, namely, Arumugam. The trial Court had allowed the IA., vide order, dated 25.11.2025. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds of Revision would submit that the third respondent is not at all a legal heir of the 2/6
deceased plaintiff. He would further submit that the present application has to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties, since the legal heirship certificate was not produced by the respondents 1 to 3 herein to prove that the third respondent is one of the heirs of the deceased plaintiff. However, the Court below, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case properly, allowed the said IA, which warrants interference of this Court. Hence, he prays for appropriate orders.
4.Heard the learned counsel on either side and this Court perused the order passed in the interlocutory application. Since no adverse orders are going to be passed against the respondents, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.
5.It is well settled that under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, the Court has ample power to add any person as a party at any stage of the proceedings, if such person is found to be a necessary or proper party for the effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. Upon careful perusal of the order impugned herein, this Court finds that the impleaded plaintiffs are found to have interest in the subject matter of the dispute and their presence is also essential 3/6
to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to ensure a comprehensive adjudication.
6.Further, the issue raised by the petitioners that the third petitioner is not at all a legal heir of the deceased plaintiff is a matter of fact that has to be decided on the basis of the admissible documents and pleadings before the trial Court. Hence, this Court feels that the trial Court has rightly appreciated all the aspects and allowed the application, which does not warrant any interference of this Court.
7.In fine, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
Speaking : Yes / No 29.01.2026 NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No mm 4/6
To The III Additional District Munsif, Madurai Town. 5/6
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
mm 29.01.2026 6/6