Madras High Court
CRP/2651/2023 of PUNITHAVATHI Vs SURESH on 12 October 2026
CRP No. 2651 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRP No. 2651 of 2023
CNR:{HCMA011280612023}
AND
CMP NO. 16390 OF 2023
1. Punithavathi
D/o. Varadarajan
2. V.Perumal
S/o. Varadarajan
3. V.Ariprakash
S/o. Varadarajan
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Suresh
S/o. Varadhan
2. Bhakthavatsalam
S/o. Raj Gounder
3. Paranthaman
S/o. Bhakthavatsalam
4. The Tahsildar
Cheyyar
5. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Cheyyar
6. The District Collector
Tiruvannamalai
CRP No. 2651 of 2023
7. The Sub Registrar
Dusi
..Respondent(s)
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the Fair Order and Decretal Order in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No. 273 of 2015 dated 13.03.2023 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai District.
For Petitioner(s):
Ms.Charishma V
for Mrs.Srimathi V
For Respondent(s):
D.Lakshmipathy
G.Priya Vadhana
FOR R 1
Mrs.S.Yogalakshmi
Additional Government Pleader for
R4 to R7
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 I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No. 273 of 2015 dated 13.03.2023 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai District, wherein the application filed by the petitioners / proposed defendants came to be rejected by the Court below.
CRP No. 2651 of 2023
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.273 of 2015 seeking for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property and for a mandatory injunction against the 3rd defendant to cancel the patta issued in favour of the defendants 1 and 2 with respect to the suit property in Survey No.146/5 measuring an extent of 5 cents. The petitioners, who are the legal heirs of Varadharajan filed IA No.1 of 2023 under Order I Rule 10 of CPC to implead themselves as the proposed defendants on the ground that the said Varadharajan had been granted patta in respect of Survey No.146/1, measuring an extent of 0.01.0 hectares, which was subsequently subdivided as Survey No.146/5C. The further case of the petitioners is that nearly 70 persons have been granted patta with respect to Survey No.146/1 and the patta for 146/5C stood in the name of the petitioners and the 1st defendant and was subsequently allotted in favour of the petitioners under a family partition. In view of the same, the petitioners sought to implead themselves as proposed defendants in the suit.
4. The Court below dismissed the application on the ground that the suit was at the stage of cross examination of PW2 and that the present
CRP No. 2651 of 2023
application has been filed at this stage. The Court below observed that the independent claim made by the petitioners over the property cannot be decided in the present application and that the application itself has been filed only to drag on the proceedings. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision petition has been filed before this Court.
5. The specific case of the petitioners is that Survey No.146/1 has been subdivided and that the actual dispute is with respect to the property in Survey No.146/5C over which the petitioners are claiming rights. Therefore, it is contended that the defendants 1 and 2 are not the contesting parties in respect of the said property and that it is actually the petitioners, who are the contesting defendants seeking to safeguard their rights. If the defendants 1 and 2 do not contest the case and the contest is going to be made only by the petitioners, considering the fact that they are claiming rights over Survey No.146/5C, the Court has to determine which survey number is in dispute in the present case, particularly when it is contended that more than seventy persons have been granted patta in respect of Survey No.146/1. The petitioners are certainly proper parties to the suit. Their presence is required to enable the Court below to effectively deal with the suit. If the Court below is inclined to grant the relief, it would be better to grant such relief in the presence of the petitioners so that they do not come forward in future to dispute the decree.
CRP No. 2651 of 2023
6. These crucial aspects were not taken into consideration by the Court below while dismissing the application and hence, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Court below and accordingly, the same is set-aside. This Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. The Additional District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu is directed to dispose of the suit in OS No.273 of 2015 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 12-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKA To The Additional District Munsif Court, Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai District.
CRP No. 2651 of 2023
N.ANAND VENKATESH J. RKA CRP No. 2651 of 2023 AND CMP NO. 16390 OF 2023 12-10-2026