CRP/2364/2025 of M. Chitra Vs Rathipriya on 8 October 2026

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of the learned District Judge, Mayiladuthurai, passed in I.A.No.14 of 2025 in O.S.No.60 of 2023 dated

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 03:55:10 pm )

09.04.2025, wherein the application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead her as one of the defendant in the suit, came to be rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record. This Court also went through the impugned order.

3. The first respondent is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.60 of 2023 seeking for the relief of partition and for allotment of 1/2 share in the suit property and for other consequential reliefs. The petitioner, who is the third party to the suit, filed I.A.No.14 of 2025 in O.S.No.60 of 2023 under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead her as a defendant in the suit on the ground that two items of the properties, which absolutely belong to the petitioner, have been included in the schedule of property by describing them as joint family property and that the petitioner is entitled for 1/2 share in the suit property.

4. The Court below dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the petitioner has not filed any material to establish that she is the legal heir of Rengasamy Reddiyar. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed before this Court.

5. In the considered view of this Court, the reasoning given by the Court below to the effect that the petitioner did not file any material to prove that she

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 03:55:10 pm )

is the legal heir of Rengasamy Reddiyar, is erroneous. The petitioner has, in fact, filed several documents to substantiate that she is the daughter of Rengasamy Reddiyar. In the light of this finding rendered by the Court below, the Court below has not gone into the other issues raised on the side of plaintiff and other defendants, who are denying the right of the petitioner in the suit properties. It will not be appropriate for this Court to deal with those objections raised on the side of plaintiff and other defendants and this Court deems it fit to set aside the order passed by the Court below and remand the application back to the file of the Court below with a direction to pass final orders within a time frame.

6. In the light of the above discussion, without touching upon the merits of the case, the order passed in I.A.No.14 of 2025 in O.S.No.60 of 2023 dated 09.04.2025 by the District Judge, Mayiladuthurai, is hereby set aside. The Court below is directed to deal with I.A.No.14 of 2025 in O.S.No.60 of 2023 on merits after hearing both sides and final order shall be passed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. Insofar as the issue whether the petitioner is the daughter of Rengasamy Reddiyar is concerned, the documents establish the said fact and therefore, except this fact, the Court below shall deal with all the other issues raised while passing final orders in the application.

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 03:55:10 pm )

In the result, this civil revision petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 08-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gm To The District Judge,

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 03:55:10 pm )

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. gm Civil Revision Petition No.2364 of 2025 08-10-2026

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 03:55:10 pm )