CRP/3947/2024 of Ravikumar Vs Gnanasakthi Jagatheesan on 11 November 2026

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 04.09.2024 in the unnumbered interlocutory application, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/third party under Order I Rule 10 CPC to add him as the second defendant in the suit.

2. Heard learned counsel on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record. This Court also went through the impugned order.

3. The respondent is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.27 of 2021 against one Ramasamy seeking the relief of permanent injunction. The suit was at the stage of final hearing and at that stage, the petitioner herein filed an interlocutory application under Order I Rule 10 CPC to add him as the second defendant in the suit. The Court below dismissed the said application even without numbering the same, however, on merits. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed.

4. The main ground urged by the petitioner is that the plaintiff in the present suit has filed another suit in O.S.No.55 of 2023 on the file of District Munsif, Rasipuram and in that suit, the plaintiff sought for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction and in the said suit, the petitioner herein was added as the 13th defendant. Apart from that, the petitioner had purchased the property from the defendant through a registered sale deed dated 18.11.2022 and if a decree of injunction is passed against the defendant, it will equally impact the petitioner also since the petitioner is claiming right under the defendant. The last ground raised is that the Court below even without numbering the application has passed a detailed order dismissing the application on merits.

5. The ground urged on the side of respondent/plaintiff is that the respondent/plaintiff has made specific allegations only as against the defendant and sought for relief of permanent injunction and the petitioner, who is a third party, cannot agitate his right and title over the property in the present suit and he can only work out his remedy independently in the manner known to law. It is further contended that the Court below was forced to pass the order in the application without numbering the same since the application was filed at the fag end of the proceedings and only with a view to drag on the proceedings.

6. In the case in hand, the respondent/plaintiff sought for the relief of permanent injunction. If a decree of permanent injunction is passed, it will equally impact the petitioner also since the petitioner is claiming right and title over the property from the defendant. Apart from that, the respondent/plaintiff has also filed another suit in O.S.No.55 of 2023 seeking the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction for the same property and in that suit, the petitioner has been impleaded as a defendant. In such a scenario, the petitioner is certainly a necessary and proper party to the proceedings. Unfortunately, the Court below has proceeded to pass orders on merits even without numbering the application. However, this Court does not want to stand on technicalities and it is seen that such an order was passed only after affording opportunity to both sides. This Court does not want to interfere with the order merely on the ground that the application was not numbered. This Court is only testing the legality or otherwise of the order passed by the Court below.

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. gm

7. As stated supra, the Court below failed to see that the petitioner herein certainly is a necessary and proper party. Apart from that, another suit has been filed in O.S.No.55 of 2023 before the District Munsif Court, Rasipuram, seeking the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction. If this suit is tried independently without adding the petitioner as a defendant and findings are rendered, it will obviously have an impact on the other suit. In all probability, two different Courts dealing with the same issue may result in multiplicity of proceedings due to conflicting judgments. For all the reasons stated supra, the order passed by the Court below suffers from perversity, warranting the interference of this Court. Accordingly, the order dated 04.09.2024 passed in unnumbered IA in O.S.No.27 of 2021 is set aside and this civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 11-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gm To The Sub Judge, Rasipuram. Civil Revision Petition No.3947 of 2024