Madras High Court
CRP/2759/2023 of Venkatesan Vs MURUGAN on 13 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRP No. 2759 of 2023
CNR:{HCMA011179802023}
AND
CMP NO. 17005 OF 2023
1. Venkatesan
S/o.Duraiswamy
2. Paneerselvam
S/o.Duraiswamy
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Murugan
S/o.Late Kanniappan
2. K. Settu
S/o.Mani
3. M.Sekar
S/o.Mani
4. K.Rajendran
S/o.late Kanniappan
..Respondent(s)
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order dated 07.01.2023 passed in IA.No. 359 of 2022 in OS.No. 79 of 2021 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Arakkonam.
For Petitioner(s):
M.S.Swathish Kumar
for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates
For Respondent(s):
M/s.S.Vijayanand
For R1
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 decretal order passed in IA.No. 359 of 2022 in OS.No. 79 of 2021 dated 07.01.2023 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Arakkonam, wherein the application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead the petitioners as the proposed defendants in the suit, came to be rejected by the Court below.
2. Heard both sides and carefully perused the materials available on record as well as the order passed by the Court below.
3. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in OS No.79 of 2021 seeking for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with the C schedule property, which forms part of the B Schedule property.
4. During the pendency of the above suit, the petitioners filed IA No.359 of 2022 under Order I Rule 10 of CPC to implead themselves as the proposed defendants on the ground that they are also the co-owners of the property and that the A and B schedule properties have not been partitioned and that the obstruction caused in the suit property will also affect the rights of the proposed defendants and therefore, they contended that they are necessary parties to the suit.
5. The Court below dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the suit can be maintained by a co-owner and that the petitioners were neither necessary nor proper parties to the proceedings. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision petition has been filed before this Court.
6. In the considered view of this Court, even as per the case of the plaintiff, he has admitted that the property has not been partitioned and he has filed the suit for himself and on behalf of the other legal heirs of the deceased Narasimma Reddy. Hence, the action initiated by the plaintiff will automatically enure in favour of the proposed defendants also and they need not seek to implead themselves in the suit. If at all the property in question is not partitioned, the petitioners can always seek for such partition or proceed further to file a suit for partition to get their respective share in the property. That is an independent dispute between the co-owners which cannot be gone into in the present suit. The plaintiff, who has filed the suit is not in any way acting against the proposed defendants, since he himself has admitted that the property is yet to be partitioned and the suit is filed by himself on behalf of the others. The proposed defendants are neither necessary nor proper parties to the present proceedings.
N.ANAND VENKATESH J. RKA
7. In the result, the order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any perversity warranting the interference of this Court and accordingly, the same is sustained and this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. There shall be a direction to the learned District Munsif Court, Arakkonam, to dispose of suit in OS No.79 of 2021 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 13-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKA To The District Munsif Court, Arakkonam
AND CMP NO. 17005 OF 2023 13-10-2026