CRP/6095/2026 of Nagarajan @ Rajaram Counder Vs Rajkumar on 30 September 2026

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the order dated 09.6.2026 in I.A. No.2 of 2023 in O.S.No.987 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Puducherry (for short, the Court below) wherein the application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to implead himself as a party 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: 05/10/2026 01:53:14 pm )

available on record and more particularly the impugned order.

4. The first respondent, who is the plaintiff, filed the said suit seeking for the relief of declaration to declare that he is the absolute owner of B schedule property, to direct the second respondent/ defendant to deliver vacant possession of the B schedule property after removing the superstructure and for a permanent injunction restraining the second respondent/defendant from interfering with the possession of the first respondent/plaintiff in respect of both the A and the B schedule properties.

5. The petitioner, who claims to be the co-owner, filed the said application seeking to implead himself as party defendant in the said suit on the ground that he would be entitled to half share in the suit properties and that therefore, if he had not been impleaded in the said suit as a party defendant, it would cause grave prejudice to the petitioner.

6. However, the Court below dismissed the said application by the impugned order on the ground that if the first respondent/

( Uploaded on: 05/10/2026 01:53:14 pm )

plaintiff is agitating the encroachment made in the B schedule property by a third party, it would be open to a co-sharer to safeguard the interest in the suit properties and that it would not be necessary that all the owners must be added as parties in the said suit. Aggrieved by that, the above civil revision petition has been filed before this Court.

7. In the considered view of this Court, the inter se dispute between the first respondent/plaintiff and the petitioner cannot be decided in the said suit since it confines itself to the alleged encroachment made by the second respondent/defendant by putting up a construction, which has been sought to be removed by the first respondent/plaintiff. There is already another suit pending in O.S. No.2458 of 2016 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif Court, Puducherry between the first respondent/plaintiff and the petitioner and his son for a different property.

8. The petitioner is neither a necessary party nor a proper party in the said suit since the Court below will not decide the inter se dispute between the first respondent/plaintiff and the petitioner

( Uploaded on: 05/10/2026 01:53:14 pm )

and what will be decided is only the construction put up by the second respondent/defendant in the B schedule property, which is sought to be removed by the first respondent/plaintiff in the said suit. If the petitioner has a right over the suit properties, the same has to be agitated independently in a manner known to law.

9. In the light of the above discussions, the above civil revision petition is dismissed and the impugned order dated 09.6.2026 made in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in O.S.No.987 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Puducherry is sustained. Consequently, the connected CMP is also dismissed. 30-09-2026 To The Principal District Munsif Court, Puducherry. RS

( Uploaded on: 05/10/2026 01:53:14 pm )

N.ANAND VENKATESH,J RS CRP.No.6095 of 2026& CMP.No.26417 of 2026 30-09-2026

( Uploaded on: 05/10/2026 01:53:14 pm )

( Uploaded on: 05/10/2026 01:53:14 pm )