Madras High Court
CRP/6724/2026 of M. Devadoss Vs D. Ashok Kumar on 26 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Civil Revision Petition No.6724 of 2026
& CMP.No.28976 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012320182026}
M.Devadoss
S/o Masilamani,
Residing at No.1/12,
Pillaiyar Koil Street,
Sivapoothamedu,
Vanagaram,
Chennai 600 095.
...Petitioner
Vs
1. D.Ashok Kumar
S/o M.Devadoss,
Residing at No.1/27,
Pillaiyar Koil Street,
Sivapoothamedu,
Andal Nagar,
Chennai 600 095
Kishtammal (Died),
Manicka Naicker (Died),
Alamelu Ammal (Died),
Kasi (Died),
V.Alai (Died)
2. Baby
W/o Duraikannu
Vasuki Street,
Poothapedu,
Ramapuras (via) Porur,
Saidapet Taluk 600 089
Kistammal (Died),
Damodharan (Died),
Pachaiappan (Died),
Ponni (Died)
3. Rani
W/o Arumugha Naicker
Residing at Pillaiyar Koil Street,
Annanoor Village,
Ayyapakkam Post,
Madras 600 077
4. Sampoornam
W/o Devan Naicker,
Residing at Pillaiyar Koil Street,
Annanoor Village,
Ayyapakkam Post,
Madras 600 077
5. Sundaram
S/o Guruswamipillai,
No.4/7, Gandhinilayam Old Agraharam,
Avadi, Madras 600 054
6. Chidambaram
S/o Seeyala Naicker,
27, Vinyagar Koil Street,
Annanur Village, Madras 600077
Pachaippa Naicker (Died)
7. Manoharan
S/o Pachaippa Naicker
Residing at Boothapedu Village,
Ramapuram, Chennai 600 089
8. Kullammal
D/o Pachaippa Naicker
Residing at Boothapedu Village,
Ramapuram, Chennai 600 089
9. Lalitha
D/o Pachaippa Naicker
Residing at Boothapedu Village,
Ramapuram, Chennai 600 089
10. Suseela, W/o Kasi
Residing at Boothapedu Village,
Ramapuram, Chennai 600 089
11. Vijaya, D/o Kasi
Residing at Boothapedu Village,
Ramapuram, Chennai 600 089
12. Uma, D/o Kasi
Residing at Boothapedu Village,
Ramapuram, Chennai 600 089
13. Kumari, D/o Kasi
Residing at Boothapedu Village,
Ramapuram, Chennai 600 089
14. Selvakumar, S/o Kasi
Residing at Boothapedu Village,
Ramapuram, Chennai 600 089
15. Sathya, D/o Alai
Residing at Vasuki Street,
Poothapedu Village,
Ramapuram, Chennai 600 089
16. Ramesh, S/o Alai
Residing at Vasuki Street,
Poothapedu Village,
Ramapuram, Chennai 600 089
17. Ravichandran, S/o Alai
Residing at Vasuki Street,
Poothapedu Village,
Ramapuram, Chennai 600 089
18. Usha, D/o Alai
Residing at Vasuki Street,
Poothapedu Village,
Ramapuram, Chennai 600 089
19. P.Selvam, S/o Pachiyappan
Residing at No.31,
Kuppusamy Naicker Street,
Poothapedu, Porur,
Chennai 600 089
20. B.Sakila, D/o Pachiyappan
Residing at No.31,
Kuppusamy Naicker Street,
Poothapedu, Porur,
Chennai 600 089
21. U.Annammal
D/o Pachiyappan
Residing at No.31,
Kuppusamy Naicker Street,
Poothapedu, Porur,
Chennai 600 089
22. P.Thatchayani
D/o Pachiyappan
Residing at No.31,
Kuppusamy Naicker Street,
Poothapedu, Porur,
Chennai 600 089
P.Kousalya (Died)
23. P.Karpagam
D/o Pachiyappan
Residing at No.35,
Pillaiyar Koil Street,
Annanoor, Chennai 600 077
24. D.Devika
W/o Damodharan
Residing at No.33/20,
Pillaiyar Koil Street,
Annanoor, Chennai 600 077
25. D.Sasikumar
S/o Damodharan
Residing at No.33/20,
Pillaiyar Koil Street,
Annanoor, Chennai 600 077
26. D.Nalini
D/o Damodharan
Residing at No.33/20,
Pillaiyar Koil Street,
Annanoor, Chennai 600 077.
...Respondents
PETITION under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the order dated 21.8.2026 passed in I.A.No.8 of 2026 in O.S.No.522 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Ambattur.
For Petitioner:
Mr.K.Balaji
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the order 21.8.2026 passed in I.A.No.8 of 2026 in O.S.No.522 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Ambattur (for short, the Court below) wherein the application filed by the first respondent under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) seeking to implead himself as the 36th defendant in the said suit, came to be allowed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner/second plaintiff and perused the materials available on record and more particularly the impugned order.
4. The said suit was originally filed by one Mrs.Kishtammal in the year 1983 seeking for the relief of partition. The said
Mrs.Kishtammal was said to have executed a will in favour of the petitioner and she died in the year 2004, pursuant to which, the petitioner was impleaded as the second plaintiff in the said suit.
5. When the said suit was at the stage of examination of witnesses on the side of the defendants, the first respondent filed the said application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC seeking to implead himself as D36 in the said suit on the ground that the said Mrs.Kishtammal died intestate leaving behind the petitioner/second plaintiff and the first respondent/D36, that the first respondent/D36 also has a share in the suit property and that therefore, the first respondent/D36 was a necessary and proper party to the proceedings. The first respondent/D36 also disregarded the will that was said to have been executed by the said Mrs.Kishtammal in favour of the petitioner/second plaintiff.
6. Ultimately, the Court below allowed the said application by the impugned order on the ground that the first respondent is the grandson of the said Mrs.Kishtammal - 1st plaintiff and that therefore, he would be a necessary party to the said suit. Aggrieved by that, the above civil revision petition has been filed before this Court.
7. The said Mrs.Kishtammal is the mother in law of the petitioner/2nd plaintiff.
8. The petitioner/2nd plaintiff is seriously contesting the right of the first respondent/D36 and has taken a stand that the said suit is of the year 1983, that the said application has been filed only in the year 2026 when the said suit was at the stage of examination of witnesses on the side of the defendants, that the said application has been filed only to drag on the proceedings, that the first respondent/D36 is not the son of the said Mrs.Kishtammal and that he is only the son of the petitioner/2nd plaintiff and one Mrs.Ranjitham and the grandson of the said Mrs.Kishtammal.
9. In the considered view of this Court, if this revision is entertained and kept pending, it will only result in further delaying the disposal of the said suit. Therefore, it will suffice if an observation is made by this Court to the effect that the petitioner/2nd plaintiff is seriously contesting the right claimed by the first respondent/D36 in view of the will that was executed by the said Mrs.Kishtammal in favour of the petitioner/2nd plaintiff and that by virtue of impleading the first respondent/D36, it is not necessary for the Court below to reopen the evidence. It will also suffice only to consider the right that is claimed by the first respondent/D36 by dealing with the evidence that is let in by the parties to the proceedings.
10. The civil revision petition is disposed of with the above observations and with a direction to the District Munsif Court, Ambattur to dispose of O.S.No.522 of 2007 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and submit a report before this Court. Consequently, the connected CMP is closed.
26-10-2026 To The District Munsif Court, Ambattur. RS
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J RS CRP.No.6724 of 2026& CMP.No.28976 of 2026 26-10-2026