CRP/6019/2026 of M.Elavarasan Vs M.Kathavarayan on 29 September 2026

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 24.07.2026 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.3 of 2023 by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kalasapakkam, Tiruvannamalai District, wherein the application filed by the first respondent to implead himself as the proposed defendant in the suit, came to be allowed by the Court below.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for first respondent and learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 to 5 and carefully perused the materials available on record. This Court also went through the impugned order.

3. The petitioner is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.3 of 2023 seeking for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property. During the pendency of the suit, the first respondent filed I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.3 of 2023 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead himself as the proposed defendant on the ground that the plaintiff has constructed a marriage hall in a public road and in spite of the orders passed in the writ petition, the revenue officials are not taking any steps to remove the encroachment and they are not bringing to the notice of the Court below regarding the order passed in the writ petition. It is under these circumstances, the first respondent wanted to implead himself as the proposed defendant in the suit.

4. The Court below, by order dated 24.07.2026, allowed this application on the ground that right over a public road is involved and therefore, even a third party can be impleaded in the suit in order to effectively deal with the suit and dispose of the same. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed before this Court.

5. The first respondent/third party claims himself to be a social activist and a resident of the village and he is aggrieved by the fact that the official respondents are not taking any steps to remove the alleged encroachment made by the plaintiff in a public road. His further grievance is that notice was issued for removing the encroachment and the same was put to challenge before this Court and orders were passed and in spite of the same, no further action was taken by the official defendants and the order passed in the writ petition was not even brought to the notice of the trial Court.

6. The stand taken by the first respondent/third party is that the official defendants are not prosecuting the suit effectively and no steps were taken to remove the encroachment and only if the first respondent/third party gets into the suit as defendant, he will be able to safeguard the interest of the public road and activate the official defendants to effectively prosecute the suit and to take action for removal of the encroachment.

7. The Court below was not dealing with a suit, which is of representative character or a suit filed under Section 91 CPC. The Court below was dealing with a suit where the plaintiff has taken a stand that he is in possession of the property and the defendants are attempting to interfere with the same without following due process of law. If the construction has been put up by the plaintiff in a public road, the official defendants are expected to prosecute the suit seriously and anyone from the general public cannot be allowed to get into the proceedings since they are neither a necessary nor a proper party. The Court below can effectively deal with the suit even in the absence of the first respondent/third party since the official defendants have already filed a written statement and taken a stand. Even though the first respondent may have public interest to ensure removal of an encroachment, the officials defendants are supposed to have more interest in prosecuting the suit since a duty is cast upon them in this regard. Therefore, by impleading the first respondent as a defendant in the suit, it will expand the scope of the suit and the presence of the first respondent/third party is not necessary for the Court below to deal with the case. The order passed by the Court below certainly suffers from perversity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

8. It is made clear that the official defendants in this case will effectively prosecute the suit and considering the fact that the suit has been filed in the year 2023, there shall be a direction to the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kalasapakkam, Tiruvannamalai District, to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.3 of 2023 within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the result, this civil revision petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 29-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gm To The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Kalasapakkam, Tiruvannamalai District.

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. gm Civil Revision Petition No.6019 of 2026 29-09-2026