BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20/10/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN C.R.P.(MD).549 of 2009 K.Murugan .. Petitioner. Versus 1.N.K.N.Krishnaveni 2.N.Krishnamoorthy 3.N.K.Nallayan 4.N.Lakshmana Narayanan .. Respondents. Civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set-aside the order and decreetal order dated 31.12.2008 made in I.A.No.114 of 2008, in O.S.No.47 of 2007, on the file of the District Court, Theni. !For Petitioner ... Mr.A.Thirumurthy ^For Respondents... Mr.A.Arumugham for Mr.Ajmal Khan (R1) No Appearance (R2 & R3) :ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated
31.12.2008, made in I.A.No.114 of 2008, in O.S.No.47 of 2007, on the file of the
Principal District Court, Theni.
2. The petitioner herein is the fourth respondent, in I.A.No.114 of 2008
and the third defendant in the suit, in O.S.No.47 of 2007. The second respondent
in the present civil revision petition had filed the suit, in O.S.No.47 of 2007,
for partition of the suit schedule mentioned properties. During the trial of the
said suit the first responent herein had filed an interlocutory application, in
I.A.No.114 of 2008, to implead her as one of the defendants in the suit. The
trial Court, instead of rejecting the suit for non-joinder of necessary party,
had allowed the interlocutory application, erroneously, by an order, dated
31.12.2008. The trial Court ought to have noted that the interlocutory
application had been filed by the first respondent in collusion with the
respondents 2 to 4, in the present civil revision petition.
3. The learned cousnel appearing for the first respondent had submitted
that the first respondent is the sister of the plaintiff in the suit. He had
also submitted that when the father and a brother of the first respondent had
been arrayed as defendants in the suit filed by one of her brothers, namely,
N.Krishnamoorthy, she should have also been made a party to the suit, as she
would also be entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties. In such
circumstances, the trial Court had found it appropriate to allow the
interlocutory application filed by the first respondent, as she was found to be
a necessary party to the suit.
4. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as
the first respondent, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court
finds that there is no cause or reason to interfere with the order passed by the
Principal District Court, Theni, dated 31.12.2008, made in I.A.No.114 of 2008.
It is found that the plaintiff in the suit, being the brother of the first
respondent in the present civil revision petition, had filed the suit for
partition of the suit schedule properties. The father of the first respondent,
as well as her father, had been shown as the defendants in the said suit.
However, as the first respondent had not been made a party to the said suit, she
had filed the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.114 of 2008, to implead her
as one of the defendants in the said suit, as she would also have a share in the
suit schedule properties.
5. In such circumstances, the trial Court had rightly allowed the
interlocutory application filed by the first respondent stating that the first
respondent is a necessary party to the suit in O.S.No.47 of 2007. As such, the
contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be countenanced.
Therefore, the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
csh
To:
The District Court, Theni.
