Madras High Court
CRP/2244/2025 of MOHAMMED BASHEERUDDIN AHMED Vs Mohamed Abdullah on 15 October 2026
CRP No. 2244 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15-10-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRP No. 2244 of 2025
and CMP No.13033 fo2025
CNR:{HCMA011180002025}
Mohammed Basheeruddin Ahmed
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Mohamed Abdullah
2.Padmakar Reddy
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order made in IA No. 5 of 2025 in OS No. 2130 of 2022 dated 21.04.2025
on the file of the I Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner(s):
Ms.Rushmitha
for Mr.H.Syed Alim
For Respondent(s):
Mr. Wilson Topaz
for M/s.A.S.Kailasam Associates
for R1
for R2- Sd- NA
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 fair and decreetal order passed in IA No. 5 of
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:30 pm )
CRP No. 2244 of 2025 2025 in OS No. 2130 of 2022 dated 21.04.2025, on the file of the I Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, wherein the application filed by the 1st respondent/1st defendant to remove him from the suit under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC, came to be allowed by the Court below.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
3. This Court carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record and this Court also went through the order passed by the Court below.
4. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit seeking for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the B schedule property. During the pendency of the suit IA.No.5 of 2025 was filed by the 1st respondent/1st defendant to strike off his name under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC, on the ground that the property has already been sold in favour of the 2nd defendant and the 2nd defendant has in turn sold the property in favour of some of third party and therefore the 1st defendant is completely out of the scene insofar as the suit property is concerned.
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:30 pm )
CRP No. 2244 of 2025
5. The Court below allowed the said application on the ground that the 1st respondent/1st defendant is no longer in possession of the property and hence the 1st defendant need not be continued to be shown as a party to the proceedings and accordingly deleted the name of the 1st defendant.
6. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 8.10.2026, this Court brought to the notice of the learned counsel for the petitioner/ plaintiff that no useful purpose will be served in prosecuting the suit since both the 1st and 2nd defendants are already out of the scene and a third party has purchased the property.
7. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, a further development was informed to this Court to the effect that one Rashida Begum who had originally settled the property in favour of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant had subsequently entered into a settlement with other parties and based on the same a judgment came to be passed in SA.No.1188 of 2009 dated 20.10.2023, in the following terms:
2. As per the terms of settlement agreement, both parties have settled the issue and the parties have divided the property. To that effect, 'A' and 'B' schedule was also mentioned in the said agreement. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is disposed of as per terms and conditions of Settlement Agreement. The said Settlement Agreement dated 13.09.2023 shall form part and parcel of the decree. No
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:30 pm )
CRP No. 2244 of 2025 costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
8. In the light of the above development, both the plaintiff as well as the 1st defendant have no say in the property and the legal impact of this judgment passed in the second appeal qua the settlement deed dated 14.11.2022 has to be tested.
9. The plaintiff by prosecuting the present suit is only a whipping a dead horse and therefore the plaintiff has to take a call regarding the further course of action to be taken. In view of the same, the order passed by the Court below does not require the interference of this Court.
10. In the result, the order passed by the Court below in IA No. 5 of 2025 in OS No. 2130 of 2022 dated 21.04.2025, on the file of the I Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, is hereby confirmed and this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 15-10-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No kp
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:30 pm )
CRP No. 2244 of 2025 To I Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:30 pm )
CRP No. 2244 of 2025 N.ANAND VENKATESH J. kp CRP No. 2244 of 2025
15-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:30 pm )