IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.12.2008
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL
C.R.P.(PD). No.3957 of 2008
and
M.P.No.1 of 2008
Ambrose .. Petitioner
Versus
1. Sivabakkiam
2. The Tahsildar,
Tahsildar Office,
Jayankondam,
Udayarpalayam Taluk.
3. Tamil Nadu Government
represented by its District Collector,
District Collector Office,
Perambalur. .. Respondents
The Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 10.03.2008 made in I.A.No.428 of 2007 in O.S.No.228 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Jayankondam.
For Petitioner : M/s. N. Mala
ORDER
The Revision petitioner/plaintiff has projected the Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 10.03.2008 in I.A.No.428 of 2007 in O.S.No.228 of 2000 passed by the learned District Munsif, Jeyankondam, in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of Civil Procedure Code to implead the Tahsildar, Jeyankondam and Tamil Nadu Government represented by its District Collector, Perambalur.
2. The trial Court while passing orders in I.A.No.428 of 2007 has inter-alia opined that the present suit filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff is one for declaration and consequential relief of bare injunction and that if the suit is decreed in favour of the revision petitioner/plaintiff and patta has automatically issued in favour of the plaintiff and only to drag on the main case, the same has been filed and resultantly dismissed the application.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff urges before this Court that the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.428 of 2007 is contrary to law and facts and that to avoid plurality of proceedings, the trial Court ought to have allowed the I.A.No.428 of 2007 and for effectively deciding the issues in the suit the parties mentioned in the I.A.No.428 of 2007 are necessary and proper parties and therefore prays for allowing the revision in furtherance of substantial cause of justice.
4. A perusal of the plaint indicates that the suit has been filed for declaration of right of the Civil Revision Petitioner/plaintiff in the suit property and also for the relief of permanent injunction. It cannot be in dispute that the suit has been filed on 05.09.2000 and that the present I.A.No.428 of 2007 has been filed belatedly by the revision petitioner. When a Court of Law deals with an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code, it has to see whether the persons sought to be impleaded are necessary and proper parties and without their presence the suit cannot be proceeded any further. As far as the present case is concerned, now the patta stands in the name of one Kiththeri Ammal. If the relief prayed for by the Civil Revision Petitioner/plaintiff is granted by the trial Court in the main suit, then the revision petitioner will get patta. In that view of the matter, this Court opines that the Tahsildar, Jeyankondam and the TamilNadu Government represented by its District Collector, Perambalaur are not necessary and proper parties. In the considered view of this Court and infact without their presence, the controversies/disputes in the suit can be proceeded further and a decision can be arrived at by the trial Court and in that view of the matter, the Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is dismissed.
5. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and the order passed by the trial Court is affirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned by this Court. Since the suit is of the year 2000, this Court directs the trial Court to dispose of the main suit O.S.No.228 of 2000 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to report compliance to this Court. There shall be no orders as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
mra
To
District Munsif,
Jayankondam