Tirunelveli Junction High Road, Kemalamuthu Charities Kattida Vadagaitharkal Sangam vs Sethuramalingam and others

V. Kanagaraj, J.—This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dt. 12.03.2001 made in I.A. No. 561 of 2000

in O.S. No. 332 of 2000 by the Court of first Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli, thereby the said court in an application filed by the first

respondent herein under Order 1, Rule 10(2) and Section 151C.P.C. has allowed the said application ordering to implead the petitioner therein as

12th defendant in the suit deciding that he is a necessary party to the proceedings. The first respondent has filed the said application under Order 1,

Rule 10(2) and Section 151C.P.C. seeking to implead as 12th defendant to the suit in which the revision petitioner has filed the suit against the

respondents 2 to 12 as defendants 1 to 11 for a permanent injunction in which the first respondent in his application filed before the Lower Court

would plead that Door No. 99 shop was initially taken on lease by his father for the purpose of selling flowers and after his death, since the

business was not able to be carried on, the petitioner therein was running a tea stall therein and thereafter some other business, investing money in

it; that since the petitioner therein was a Government servant, he allowed his younger brother to run the shop paying the tax himself; that it seems

his brother did not give the true account and hence the petitioner therein filed a suit in O.S. No. 149 of 1997 in the court of Subordinate Judge,

Tirunelveli which is pending; that his brother posing to be the secretary of the petitioner''s Sangam has furnished information in his statement to the

effect that he is only the lessee of the shop; that the pendency of the suit is not at all brought to the picture in the suit and that on such averments,

the first respondent herein seeking to implead him as a party to the suit proceedings as 12th defendant has filed the said application before the

Lower Court.

In the counter filed by the petitioner herein before the Lower Court, besides denying generally all the averments, it would be pointed out that it is

the petitioner''s Sangam which is the lessee; that the first respondent has no right much less as lessee in the said property; that the place belongs to

a charity; that the first respondent has come forward to file a petition with ulterior motives of obtaining wrongful gains and that on such averments,

the petitioner herein would seek to dismiss the application.

The Lower Court, in consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and having framed proper points, would allow the parties to

record the evidence with due opportunity afforded to them during which no oral evidence would be let in by either of the parties, but two

documents would be marked as Ex. A1 and A2 on the part of the petitioner therein namely the petition and counter filed in O.S. No. 149 of 1997.

The Court below, having its own discussions on the various aspects involved in this case, would find that the first respondent has vital interest in

the suit property being its lessee which has been admitted on the part of the petitioner in the other suit and, therefore, unless he is allowed to

participate in the proceedings of the suit impleading him as a party/12th defendant, no valid decision could be arrived at and therefore, on such

reason the Lower Court deciding that the first respondent is the necessary party to the suit proceedings would order impleading him as 12th

defendant in the suit, testifying the validity of which the petitioner herein has filed this revision petition.

During arguments, learned counsel appearing for both would lay emphasis on their respective pleadings before the Lower Court and the factual

position projected by them. On the part of the revision petitioner, he would submit that an order was passed by the learned single Judge of this

Court reported in R.R. Square etc. v. Mrs. Shobalatha Debi (1997 (2) L.W. 691) wherein it is held that on an application filed under Order 1,

Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleading respondents 2, 3 and 4 as defendants 2, 3 and 4 therein namely the subsequent agreement holders, the principle for

impleading a third party is avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings and hence the court has no jurisdiction to add a party, unless it is necessary and

proper party.

The circumstances under which and the facts in consideration of which the above conclusions arrived at by the learned Judge are entirely

different from the set of facts involved in this case and therefore, the decision taken in the said case does not become applicable to the facts of the

case in hand and hence the said judgment becomes inapplicable to the present case.

On an overall consideration and on a perusal of the entire records, particularly the order of the Lower Court which is impugned herein, it comes

to be seen that the Lower Court got convinced to the effect that the first respondent herein who was the petitioner before it had genuine interest in

the suit property therein and any decision taken in his absence without any opportunity would affect his fortune in the suit property and therefore,

thought it fit to implead him as party/defendant No. 12, concluding that he is the necessary party to the suit.

It is not only the decision arrived at by the Court below in the said application but also the manner in which it has been arrived at are in order.

Only after having considered the full facts and circumstances, framing proper points, affording adequate opportunity for parties to be heard and

having its own discussions in the light of the evidence placed on record, the lower Court has arrived at a valid and acceptable decision to implead

the first respondent herein as party/12th defendant to the suit.

There is absolutely no infirmity or inconsistency in the decision arrived at by the Lower Court in the said application as per the order impugned

herein and hence the interference of this Court i.e. sought to be made into the said order which is well considered and merited one is neither

necessary nor warranted in the circumstances of the case. In result, the above Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is dismissed. The fair and

decretal order dt. 12.03.2001 made in I.A. No. 561 of 2000 in O.S. No. 332 of 2000 by the I Additional D.M. Tirunelveli is confirmed. No

costs. Consequently, the connected CMP. is also dismissed.