Subramanian vs Murugesan and Others

S. Vimala, J.—The unsuccessful proposed fourth defendant has filed this Civil Revision Petition challenging the order dated 23.9.2011

passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur, Pudukkottai District in I.A. No. 398 of 2011 in O.S. No. 137 of 2007,

dismissing the petition filed under Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C. to add him as a party in the suit. Originally, the fourth respondent herein viz., Jothi

Lakshmi has filed a suit in O.S. No. 13 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Keeranur against the respondents 1 to 3 herein, who were

defendants 1 to 3 in the suit, seeking the relief of permanent injunction on the contention that it is her exclusive property having been obtained by

virtue of the sale dated 18.9.2010.

Denying the allegations in the suit, the defendants 1 to 3 have filed a written statement.

While the suit was pending, the revision petitioner herein has filed a petition in I.A. No. 398 of 2011 in O.S. No. 137 of 2007 under Order I

Rule 10(2) C.P.C. contending that he is in possession of the part of the suit property and that he has built up a house, in which he is residing for a

past 25 years and therefore, he should be impleaded as a party in the suit.

The said petition filed by the revision petitioner herein/proposed fourth defendant was opposed by the fourth respondent herein/plaintiff on the

ground that there was no document to show that the revision petitioner herein was in possession of the part of the suit property and therefore she

prayed for dismissal of the petition.

The learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur, Pudukkottai District considered the rival contentions of the parties and by

accepting the contention of the fourth respondent herein/plaintiff that there was no document to show that the revision petitioner herein was in

possession of the part of the suit property, dismissed the said petition. As against the said order, the revision petitioner has filed the present Civil

Revision Petition.

I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the fourth

respondent.

A perusal of the impugned order of the Court below shows that the petition has been dismissed only on the ground that the revision petitioner

herein did not file any document to show about the existence of the house in the suit survey number. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the

interlocutory application go to show that the proposed party is in possession of documents to prove his case. According to him, an extent of 5

cents out of the suit property belonged to him and that he is in possession of the house built over that extent for the past 25 years. A perusal of the

affidavit goes to show that he must be in possession of house tax receipts. May be out of ignorance or because of the fact that he was yet to be

impleaded, having regard to the stage, he would not have filed it. That does not mean that he is not in possession of any documents at all. The

allegations prima facie go to show that he has claim over the suit property. Therefore, he ought to have been permitted to be added as a party to

the suit. It is also to be noted that the fourth respondent/plaintiff has not made any allegations of mala fide against the revision petitioner for having

preferred this petition. In the circumstances, the Trial Court ought to have permitted the revision petitioner herein to implead himself in the suit. If at

all there is any mala fide on the part of the fourth respondent, who is the revision petitioner herein, it is always open to the Court to impose

appropriate costs. With the above observations, the impugned order of the Court below is set aside and this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The

Trial Court is directed to implead the revision petitioner herein as the fourth defendant in the suit and proceed with the same on merits and in

accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2012 is closed.