Venkitusamy vs Palanichamy

Mr. S. Palanivelu, J.—The petitioners are appellants in A.S.No.32 of 2000 on the file the Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur. They are plaintiffs in the suit. Pending hearing of the appeal, they filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. to implead the proposed 10 to 12 respondents as respondents 10 to 12 in the appeal. 2. In the affidavit, they have stated that the first plaintiff Siddhammal has three sisters by name Pappathiammal, Akkammal and Chinnakkal. They died long back and since their legal representatives are residing elsewhere, they lost their rights in the suit properties. However, the trial Court has recorded an observation that the legal representatives of sisters of the first plaintiff are necessary parties and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. In order to avoid technical defects, the application has been filed for impleading 10 to 12 defendants. Further, there is no reason on behalf of the respondents that why the parties could not be impleaded. 3. In the counter filed by the sixth defendant/respondent, it is stated that in order to fill up the lacuna in the plaintiffs case, the application has been filed and if the application is allowed, the respondents will be put to prejudice. 4. The eighth respondent filed a counter stating that the application has to be dismissed in limine because the suit is for declaration and other reliefs. Even in the written statement filed by these defendants, it was pleaded that the sisters of Siddhammal should have been impleaded as parties. The plaintiffs did not take any steps at that time and hence, they have no right to file this application in the appeal. Further, since the proposed 10 to 12 respondents are stated to be got equal share as available to the plaintiffs, these proposed parties should have been prayed to be impleaded as plaintiffs and that there is no reason to allow the application. 5. After hearing both parties, the learned Additional District Judge, Karur, has dismissed the application. Hence, this revision. 6. The trial Court has recorded a specific finding that the parties now proposed to be impleaded are necessary parties to the suit and in their absence, no final adjudication could be made. On the basis of the pleadings by defendants in the written statement, even though such a plea of non-joinder of necessary parties was raised before the trial Court earlier to the trial of the suit, these petitioners have not taken any steps for impleading parties. Hence, it is argued that they sought to fill up the lacuna. Further, if necessary parties are not impleaded, the outcome of the suit shall be dismissal as per Order 1, Rule 9 C.P.C. This provision reads that no suit shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and the Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it. The proviso attached with this provision would show that nothing in this rule shall apply to non-joinder of necessary party. As per the said provision, when Court finds that if necessary parties are not in the array, the dismissal of the suit is a lawful one. There is no justification on the part of the petitioners for their failure to take steps before the Court below even after necessary pleadings were raised in the written statement that necessary parties have to be impleaded. In these circumstances, there is no ground to allow the revision. The order passed by the Court below deserves to be confirmed and it is accordingly confirmed. This revision is devoid of merits. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed. No costs. C.R.P. Dismissed - M.P. Dismissed - No Costs.