CRP(MD)/2664/2026 of Papparasan Vs Agastin on 28 September 2026

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 22.09.2025 made in I.A.No. 02 of 2024 in O.S.No. 99 of 2019 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff, who filed a suit for recovery of possession from one Moses, who had encroached the suit property. While the suit was pending, one Augustine/respondent filed a petition under Order I Rule 10 of CPC with a prayer to implead him as a party by claiming that he is a joint Patta holder of the suit property and the the trial Court has allowed the petition, which is not correct, since the revenue record cannot constitute any title and the party, who claimed joint Patta is not the owner of the property and prayed to dismiss the petition by allowing the civil revision petition.

3. On perusal of the records, it is seen that one Augustine filed an impleading petition by claiming that the suit property is his absolute property. The respondent constructed a building and was living continuously in the suit property. Since, the roof of this building was demolished, at present he is living in another place. Considering his possession and enjoyment of the property, the revenue officials are also issued a joint patta in his name bearing No.196. On 23.09.2023, the Commissioner of Court inspected the property and at that time, when he made enquiries regarding the property, the respondent came to know that the plaintiff had deliberately instituted the suit without impleading the respondent whose name is reflected in revenue records relating to suit property, as well as the plaintiff's brother, namely, Rajendran, as parties to the proceedings. Hence, he filed a petition to implead himself as a 2nd defendant.

4. The revision petitioner filed his counter by stating that he has no right whatever in the suit property and claims that the respondent name was wrongly included in the UDR and also stated that patta does not constitute title and that the petitioner had already filed an application to cancel the Patta, which is pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer. Therefore, the petitioner states that without any proof of title, based on the patta, the respondent claimed the title, which is ought to be dismissed. However, the trial Court, taking into consideration the fact that the name of the impleading party is found in a joint Patta, allowed the impleading petition. Though the revision petitioner objected his title, the trial Court is of the view that only after enquiry, it could be decided who is the original owner. Based on the above view, the trial Court allowed the petition and to implead the respondent as 2nd defendant in the suit. Therefore, if the Court, considers that such parties are necessary for proper adjudication, it has the power to implead them as a parties.

5. This Court do not find any find any illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. There is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. According to the petitioner, the suit is pending for the past seven years without any progress and hence, prayed for speedy disposal of the suit. Considering the request of the petitioner, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial and dispose of the suit, at the earliest, preferably, within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial and dispose of the suit in OS.No.99 of 2019 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi, at the earliest, preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

28.09.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No RM To The District Munsif Court, Aranthangi.

R. POORNIMA,

J.

RM C.R.P(MD)No.2664 of 2026 28.09.2026