M.Durai vs E. Dhanasekar

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Oct 30, 2025

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1869344

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1869344
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice S. Sounthar
Decided On: Oct 30, 2025
Case Number: CRP/5180/2025

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M.Durai

Respondent

E. Dhanasekar

Excerpt

in the high court of judicature at madrasdated : 30.10.2025coram:the honourable mr.justice s.sounthar m.durai ... petitioner vs.1. e.dhansekar2. e.deivanai3. the sub-registrarregister officer kaveripakkam, nemili taluk ranipet district pin code-631 051 ...respondent prayer :civil revision petition filed article 227 of constitution of india, praying, to set aside the order dated 17.12.2024 passed in ia no. 8/2023 in os no. 131/2020 by the sub-ordinate judge at arakkonam. for petitioner : mr.pari gopal for respondent : m/s.aswini devi.k for r3 additional government pleaderorderthe civil revision petition is filed by the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance challenging the order passed by the court below allowing theapplication filed by a third party for his impleadment. 2.the first respondent/ third party to the suit, purchased the suit property pending suit for specific performance. he has filed a petition in ia.no.08 of 2023 seeking his impleadment in the suit. the trial court observed that though he was not a necessary party to the litigation, being a pendente lite purchaser, he was a proper party in a suit for specific performance and allowed the application. the presence of pendente lite purchaser will enable the court to decide the controversy involved in the suit comprehensively. in case of passing of decree for specific performance, there may not be any problem at the time of execution if the pendente lite purchaser is impleaded. i do not find any error in the order passed by the court below. the civil revision petition stands dismissed. consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. no costs.index : yes / no internet : yes / no nr to the learned sub-ordinate judge, arakkonam.s.sounthar , j.nr

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR M.Durai ... Petitioner Vs.
1. E.Dhansekar
2. E.Deivanai
3. The Sub-Registrar
Register Officer Kaveripakkam, Nemili Taluk Ranipet District Pin Code-631 051 ...Respondent PRAYER :Civil Revision Petition filed Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying, to set aside the order dated 17.12.2024 passed in IA No. 8/2023 in OS No. 131/2020 by the Sub-Ordinate Judge at Arakkonam. For Petitioner : Mr.Pari Gopal For Respondent : M/s.Aswini Devi.K for R3 Additional Government pleader

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance challenging the order passed by the court below allowing the

application filed by a third party for his impleadment. 2.The first respondent/ third party to the suit, purchased the suit property pending suit for specific performance. He has filed a petition in IA.No.08 of 2023 seeking his impleadment in the suit. The trial court observed that though he was not a necessary party to the litigation, being a pendente lite purchaser, he was a proper party in a suit for specific performance and allowed the application. The presence of pendente lite purchaser will enable the court to decide the controversy involved in the suit comprehensively. In case of passing of decree for specific performance, there may not be any problem at the time of execution if the pendente lite purchaser is impleaded. I do not find any error in the order passed by the court below. The Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the Connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No nr To The learned Sub-Ordinate Judge, Arakkonam.

S.SOUNTHAR , J.

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2025 Same Parties M.Durai vs E. Dhanasekar Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice S. Sounthar