IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:21.10.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL C.R.P.(PD).No.3086 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 Sri Adikesava Perumal Peyalwar Devasthanam Represented by its Chairman of the Trust Board Mylapore, Chennai-4. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.Tmt.Lakshmi Suresh, Councilor, Flat No.19, Narayani Apartments, Old No.4, New No.1, Sringeri Mutt Road, Kamarajar Salai, R.A.Puram, Chennai-600 028. 2.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Buildings, Chennai-600 003. 3.The Junior Engineer, Corporation of Chennai, South Chithrakulam Street, Mylapore, Chennai-4. 4.Sri Vedantha Desikar Devasthanam Represented by its Trustees V.Venkatesh, S.Sathya Narayanan & v.N.Srinivasan 4/11, K.P. Koil Sannathi Street, Mylapore, Chennai - 4. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decree dated 16.07.2008 made in I.A.No.18166 of 2007 in O.S.No.7288 of 2005 on the file of the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Rajagopal For Caveator : Mr.A.Tamilvanan ORDER
The civil revision petitioner/plaintiff has filed this revision aggrieved against the order passed in I.A.No.18166 of 2007 dated 16.07.2008 by the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in allowing the application filed by the third defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code.
2.The trial Court has passed an order in I.A.No.18166 of 2007 dated 16.07.2008 inter alia stating that ‘the problem to implead the party is to find out which SR. No encroachment is available. Until other wise the pleadings in the petition is allowed, this petitioner will not be in a position to find out the truth and resultantly, allowed the application.’
3.According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the order of the trial Court is not correct in the eye of law since the principles of natural justice has been violated and that the petitioner/plaintiff being a dominus litus, ought to have been heard while deciding the application and by hearing of the counsel for the third defendant and the proposed party has no relevance in the matter in issue and that the proposed party being a third party cannot be impleaded to the constitution of a suit, in a suit filed by the temple and if at all the fourth respondent has to file a separate suit if it had any right in the suit schedule mentioned property and in any event, the trial Court has passed an order without giving an opportunity to the revision petitioner/plaintiff when that too earlier two applications filed by the plaintiff are pending and therefore, prays for allowing the revision.
4.In I.A.No.18166 of 2007 before the trial Court, the first respondent/petitioner/third defendant has inter alia stating that ‘the plaintiff is trying to claim on the land which belongs to the Government and which is in the road margin and that the Government has not assigned the land to anyone and there was a complaint by the local residents and Sri Vedantha Desikar Devasthanam that the person who has verified the plaint has attempting to encroach the government land and that complaint was given by the local residents and Sri Vedantha Desikar Devasthanam, the proposed party herein and that the plaintiff has conveniently not made the said Devasthanam as a necessary party and that the Corporation of Chennai has not filed any written statement because it is a government land and since the said Devasthanam is a necessary party in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit, the Devasthanam represented by its trustees are to be added as fourth defendant in O.S.No.7288 of 2005.
5.In the counter filed by the revision petitioner/ plaintiff that it is mentioned among other things that the application has not been filed by the proposed party and the collusion between the third defendant and the proposed party is quite evident and that the first respondent/petitioner/ third defendant has to make out a case for allowing the application and that the said application is a fabulous one and the same is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
6.On going through the order of the trial Court in I.A.No.18166 of 2007, this Court without going into merits and demerits of the case prima facie is of the considered view, the same is unsustainable in the eye of law for the simple reason, the order has been passed by the trial Court in allowing the application without mentioning due reasons therefor. In short, the order passed by the trial Court in allowing the application is a cryptic one and the same is not a full-fledged, reasoned speaking order and in that view of the matter, this Court allows the civil revision petition in furtherance of substantial cause of justice.
7.In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.18166 of 2007 is set aside. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the I.A.No.18166 of 2007 after passing a reasoned and speaking order assigning quantitative and qualitative reasons thereto within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
sgl
To
The VII Assistant Judge,
City Civil Court,
Chennai
[ PRV / 16011 ]