CRP(MD)/2054/2026 of Ganapathy Vs Sivasankarapandian (Died), 1 on 29 September 2026

ORDER

This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 02.03.2026 passing in I.A.No.8 of 2024 in O.S.No.152 of 2014 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil.

2. The petitioner is the defendant, and the first respondent is the proposed second plaintiff in the suit for declaration, recovery of possession and permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the first respondent herein filed a petition under Order XXII Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., seeking to implead him as the second plaintiff in his capacity as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff and to implead the second respondent as the second defendant in the suit.

3. The revision petitioner/defendant contended that the plaintiff, who instituted the suit, died on 03.08.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A. Nos. 4 and 5 of 2021, along with I.A. No. 588 of 2018, seeking to set aside the abatement, to bring the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff on record, and to condone the delay of 581 days in filing the petition. However, the said petitions were not pressed by the petitioner on 28.06.2022, and no liberty was sought or granted to file a fresh petition. Subsequently, the petitioner filed I.A.

No. 6 of 2022 under Order I Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C., seeking to implead himself as the second plaintiff. The said application was dismissed on 13.09.2023, with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate petition under Order XXII Rule 3 of the C.P.C. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 8 of 2024 under Order XXII Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C., seeking to implead the first respondent herein as the second plaintiff and the second respondent herein as the second defendant. The said application was also dismissed by the trial court. However, the trial court once again granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition for setting aside the abatement and for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff on record, in accordance with the provisions of Order XXII of the C.P.C.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been filed contending that, in I.A. No. 6 of 2022, the trial court had already granted liberty to the first respondent to file an appropriate application under Order XXII Rule 3 of the C.P.C. However, without following the specific direction of the trial court, the first respondent again filed I.A. No. 8 of 2024 under Order XXII Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C., which, according to the revision petitioner, is not the appropriate provision for seeking to set aside the abatement, bring the legal representatives on record, or effect the necessary impleadment. It is further contended that the trial court ought to have noticed that the suit had already abated upon the expiry of 90 days from the date of death of the sole plaintiff. Such abatement could be set aside only by following the mandatory procedure contemplated under Order XXII Rule 9 of the C.P.C. read with the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act. The repeated grant of liberty to file fresh applications, without adherence to the procedure prescribed under Order XXII of the C.P.C., would defeat the statutory scheme governing abatement. On these grounds, the revision petitioner seeks to set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application filed by the first respondent.

5. According to the respondent, the plaintiff had originally instituted the suit seeking a declaration, recovery of possession and permanent injunction against the defendant. During his lifetime, the plaintiff executed a Will and subsequently passed away. On the basis of the said Will, the respondent filed an application seeking to implead himself as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff. However, since the wife of the deceased plaintiff was also alive, the respondent did not press the said application, as it was necessary to bring her on record. Thereafter, the respondent filed a second application under Order I Rule 10 of the C.P.C., seeking to implead himself in the suit. Since the respondent had not taken steps to bring the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff on record under Order XXII Rule 3 of the C.P.C., the said application was dismissed, with liberty to the respondent to file an appropriate application under the relevant provisions of law. Pursuant to the said direction, the respondent filed the subsequent application. It is contended that, even if the provision of law had been wrongly quoted in the application, the same by itself could not be a ground for dismissal, as the court is competent to grant the relief if the applicant is otherwise entitled to it. Mere wrong quoting of a provision of law would not defeat a legitimate claim. It is further contended that, pursuant to the direction of the trial court, the respondent once again filed the appropriate application seeking to bring the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff on record. The said application, therefore, ought to have been allowed, as otherwise the respondent would be put to great hardship and prejudice. It is submitted that the deceased plaintiff died leaving behind the respondent and his second wife as his legal representatives, and both are necessary parties for the proper adjudication of the suit.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record.

7. It is true that the petitioner repeatedly filed applications by quoting an incorrect provision of law. Mere quoting of a wrong provision, by itself, need not have resulted in dismissal of the application. The trial court, instead of dismissing the application on that ground, could have considered the substance of the relief sought and, if otherwise permissible in law, allowed the application, thereby avoiding further delay and multiplicity of proceedings. However, it is also to be noted that the trial court had, on two occasions, granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application. The petitioner had also taken considerable time to avail the said liberty and, despite the specific direction of the trial court to file an application under Order XXII Rule 3 of the C.P.C., repeatedly invoked an incorrect provision. Such conduct on the part of the petitioner cannot be completely overlooked. Nevertheless, considering the fact that the deceased plaintiff left behind legal heirs, and that the impleadment of the legal representatives is necessary for the effective and complete adjudication of the suit, this Court is of the view that, in the interest of justice, the petitioner ought not to be non-suited on a mere technicality. If the legal representatives are not brought on record and the suit is proceeded with in their absence, any order or decree passed therein may give rise to further proceedings at a later stage. Such a situation would result in further hardship and multiplicity of litigation.

8. In the above circumstances, and in order to advance the cause of substantial justice, the revision petition is dismissed, directing the petitioner to take appropriate steps before the trial court in accordance with law for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff on record. However, considering the repeated filing of applications by the petitioner and the consequent delay caused in the proceedings, the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the respondents towards costs on or before 08.10.2026. In the event of failure to pay the said amount within the stipulated time, the application filed by the petitioner shall stand dismissed automatically. There shall be no order as to costs in the revision petition. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

9. List the matter for reporting compliance on 08.10.2026.

29.08.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Ns To

1. The Additional District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil

2. The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

R.POORNIMA

, J. Ns CRP(MD) NO. 2054 of 2026 29.08.2026