Madras High Court
CRP/6364/2026 of Chandra Vs K.Ramu on 5 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Civil Revision Petition No.6364 of 2026
& CMP.No.27406 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012158362026}
Chandra, W/o.K.Ramu,
No.9/3 Palla Street,
Eachangadu -Kayar Village,
Tiruporur Taluk,
Chengalpet District.
603 110.
...Petitioner
Vs
1. K.Ramu
S/o.Late Kasi Naicker,
No.4/653 Palla Street,
Eachangadu-Kayar Village,
Tiruporur Taluk,
Chengalpet District.
603110.
2. Kanniammal
No.4/653 Palla Street,
Eachangadu-Kayar Village,
Tiruporur Taluk,
Chengalpet District.
603 110.
...Respondents
( Uploaded on: 07/10/2026 01:32:32 pm )
PETITION under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 15.6.2026 passed in I.A.
No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No.36 of 2024 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Chengalpet.
For Petitioner:
Mr.R.B.Rishabh
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 order dated 15.6.2026 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No.36 of 2024 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Chengalpet (for short, the Court below) wherein the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff to implead the second respondent as the second defendant in the said suit came to be dismissed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials
( Uploaded on: 07/10/2026 01:32:32 pm )
available on record and more particularly the impugned order.
4. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff, filed the said suit seeking for a direction to the first respondent/defendant - husband to pay her a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards maintenance and for creating a charge over the suit properties. Pending the said suit, she filed I.A.No.2 of 2025 seeking to amend the survey number in item No.1 of the suit properties and to implead the second respondent as the second defendant in the said suit on the ground that the first respondent – husband settled item No.1 of the suit properties in favour of the second respondent in the year 2018 and that if at all a charge is sought to be created over the subject properties, the second respondent – proposed defendant would be a necessary party in the said suit.
5. But, the Court below dismissed the said application mainly on the ground that proposed defendant – second respondent was neither a necessary party nor a proper party in the said suit after considering the relief sought for by the petitioner. Aggrieved by that, the above civil revision petition has been filed before this
( Uploaded on: 07/10/2026 01:32:32 pm )
Court.
6. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner’s daughters have already filed a suit in O.S.No.111 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Court, Chengelpet seeking to declare the settlement deeds dated 11.6.2018 and 10.2.2021 executed in favour of the second respondent – proposed defendant as null and void.
7. In the present case, the petitioner is seeking for the relief of maintenance from the first respondent – husband and also wants to create a charge over the suit properties. The suit in O.S.No.111 of 2018 filed the daughters of the petitioner questioning the validity of the settlement deeds dated 11.6.2018 and 10.2.2021 will have a direct bearing on the charge that is sought to be created by the petitioner over the same property namely item No.1 of the suit properties. Therefore, it will be more appropriate to get both the suits heard before the same Court simultaneously so that there is no multiplicity of proceedings on the subject matter of dispute and the suits can be consummately tried by the same Court.
( Uploaded on: 07/10/2026 01:32:32 pm )
8. As rightly held by the Court below, the proposed second defendant is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the present proceedings. The settlement deeds that have been executed by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent – proposed party is already a subject matter of issue in the other suit. If both the suits are brought before the same Court, the issues can be decided accordingly. The impugned order passed by the Court below does not require the interference of this Court.
9. Accordingly, the above civil revision petition is disposed of and while confirming the impugned order dated 15.6.2026 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No.36 of 2024 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Chengalpet, liberty is granted to the petitioner to seek for transfer of O.S.No.36 of 2024 on the file of the Additional Sub- Court, Chengalpet to the file of the Principal District Court, Chengalpet so as to enable both the suits to be tried simultaneously. Consequently, the connected CMP is closed. 05-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 07/10/2026 01:32:32 pm )
To
1. The Additional Sub-Court, Chengalpet.
2. The Principal District Court, Chengalpet. RS
( Uploaded on: 07/10/2026 01:32:32 pm )
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J RS CRP.No.6364 of 2026& CMP.No.27406 of 2026 05-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 07/10/2026 01:32:32 pm )