K.Murugan Vs. N.K.N.Krishnaveni - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/922877
CourtChennai High Court
Decided OnOct-20-2011
Case NumberC.R.P.(MD).549 of 2009
JudgeM.JAICHANDREN, J.
AppellantK.Murugan
RespondentN.K.N.Krishnaveni
Excerpt:
1. 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.
Judgment:

1. 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.