Madras High Court
CRP/6383/2026 of MGP Builders Vs Vijay Balasubramanian on 7 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Civil Revision Petition No.6383 of 2026
& CMP.No.27496 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012175522026}
MGP Builders rep.by its
Authorized Signatory,
No.27, Andavar Street,
Thilagar Avenue, Baliah
Garden, Madipakkam,
Chennai-91.
...Petitioner
Vs
1. Vijay Balasubramanian
S/o. Late. T.K.Balasubramanian,
20188, Sea Gull Way, Saratoga
CA 95070, USA.
2. Balasubramanian Venkatesh
S/o. Late. T.K.Balasubramanian,
No.72, Sharon Lee Drive,
Markham, ON L6C3G4,
Canada.
Both rep by their POA T.Sekar,
S/o. Late. Thirunavukarasu,
No.4/8, Kundalakesi I Street,
Peerkankaranai, Srinivasa Nagar,
Chennai-63.
3. G.Karunakaran
S/o. late. A.Ganesan,
D.No.50, Big Street,
Keelkattalai, Chennai 117.
4. R.Kowsalya
D/o. Late Ganesan,
W/o. Late. Ragupathy,
D.No.1/16, Thiruvenkadam
Street, Selaiyur,
Chennai-73.
5. S.Kalyani
D/o. Late. A.Ganesan,
W/o. Shankar, D.No.24,
Moolachathiram Main Road,
Madhavaram Milk Colony,
Chennai-51.
6. M.G.Sundaramurthi
S/o. Late. A.Ganesan,
D.No.37, Big Street,
Keelkattalai,
Chennai 117.
7. M.Nalini
D/o. late. A.Ganesan,
W/o. Manikandan,
No.33/18, Kalaivani Street,
Keelkattalai, Chennai 117.
8. G.Ashok Kumar
S/o. Govindasamy,
D.No.10, Big Street,
Keelkattalai, Chennai 117.
9. N. Munusamy
S/o. Natesan Naicker,
D.No.38, Big Street.
Keelkattalai, Chennai 117.
10. G.Satish Kumar
S/o. Govindasamy,
No.11, Thillai Ganga Nagar,
17th Street, Nanganallur,
Chennai-61.
11. S.Hem Chandar Raja
S/o. Sampath,
No.11, Thillai Ganga Nagar,
17th Street, Nanganallur,
Chennai-61.
12. Lalitha Venkatesan
W/o. Venkatesan,
No.1/63A, Bharathiyar Street,
Moovarasampettai,
Madipakkam, Chenani-91.
13. Jayanthi Ganesh Kumar
W/o. Ganesh Kumar,
9/6, Thillai Ganga Nagar,
17th Street, Nanganallur,
Chennai-61.
14. B.Harikrishnan
S/o. Boopathy,
No.8-B, Sarojammal Street,
Keelkattalai, Chennai 117.
15. M.Maniarasan
S/o. N.Munusamy,
No.38, Big Street,
Keelkattalai, Chennai 117.
...Respondents
PETITION under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 24.7.2026 made in I.A.No.5 of 2026 in O.S.
No.617 of 2025 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu.
For Petitioner:
Mr.V.Raghavachri, SC for
Mr.A.Suresh
For Respondents:
Mr.S.Rishi Bala Nithian
for R1 & R2/Caveators
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 against the order dated 24.7.2026 in I.A.No.5 of 2026 in O.S. No.617 of 2025 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu (for short, the Court below) wherein the application filed by respondents 1 and 2/ plaintiffs under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to implead them as D14 along with others, came to be allowed.
2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/D14 and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2/caveators, who are the plaintiffs.
3. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record and more particularly the impugned order.
4. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the plaintiffs, filed the said suit seeking for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. During the pendency of the said suit, the said application came to be filed by respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC seeking to implead the petitioner/D14 and others on the ground that the petitioner/D14 is the owner of the adjacent property and that they are developers, who were attempting to encroach upon the suit property by virtue of creating certain documents. Under such circumstances, respondents 1 and 2/ plaintiffs wanted to implead the petitioner as the 14th defendant in the said suit. By the impugned order, the Court below allowed the said application.
Aggrieved by that, the above civil revision petition has been filed before this Court.
5. In the case in hand, admittedly, the petitioner is not claiming any right over the suit property. The grievance of respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs seems to be that the petitioner/D14 is attempting to encroach upon the suit property and that this cause of action had arisen during the pendency of the said suit.
6. If respondents 1 & 2/plaintiffs are aggrieved by the encroachment alleged to have been made by the petitioner/D14, it can only give rise to a separate suit, which has to be filed against the concerned parties, who are alleged to have encroached upon the suit property. By no stretch, the cause of action that is now alleged by respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs can give rise to impleading the petitioner/D14, who had nothing to do with the suit property.
7. The Court below, without properly applying its mind, impleaded the petitioner as the 14th defendant in the said suit. In the considered view of this Court, the petitioner/D14 is neither a necessary party nor a proper party in the said suit. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Court below suffers from perversity warranting the interference of this Court.
8. Accordingly, the above civil revision petition is disposed of and the impugned order dated 24.7.2026 in I.A.No.5 of 2026 in O.S.No.617 of 2025 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu is set aside in so far as the petitioner/D14 is concerned. If respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs have any individual grievance against the petitioner/D14, they have to work out their remedy independently in a manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, the connected CMP is closed. 07-10-2026 To The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu. RS
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J RS CRP.No.6383 of 2026& CMP.No.27496 of 2026 07-10-2026