1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:15.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.512 of 2011 & M.P(MD)NO.2 of 2011 1.Navamaniammal 2.B.Shantha Balan 3.B.Sivashanmugam 4.B.Muthulakshmi ..Petitioners/Petitioners/ Proposed Defendants 2 to 5 -Vs- 1.B.Samiyappan 2.B.Pasupathi ..Second Respondent/Second Respondent/ Defendant PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 11.02.2011 passed in unnumbered I.A.SR.No.526 of 2011 in respect of the suit in O.S.No.98 of 2007 on he file of the Principal Sub-Court,Karur. For Petitioner :Mr.V.Meenakshisundaram ORDER The petitioner who is the third party to the suit filed an application to implead herself in the suit for partition filed by the first respondent against the second respondent. The respondents 1 and 2 are the bothers and the suit is for partition. As the petitioner who is the sister of respondents filed an application before the trial Court seeking impleadment of herself as a party to the suit. That application was rejected summarily even before numbering. The said rejection order is being challenged before this Court. 2.Mr.V.Meenakshisundaram, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court erroneously passed an order rejecting the application even without numbering it. If the application was numbered the parties would have said no objection and there may not be any problem to implead the petitioner. Secondly, he submits that her rights are affected as she is also entitle to share the property. Therefore, heseeks for setting aside the order and a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the said application. 3.It is not in dispute that the respondents are the brothers and the petitioner is the sister. It is understood from paragraph '4' of the plaint that there is a release deed executed by the petitioner herein and other parties in favour of the respondents on 16.12.1990 and thus the respondents became owners of the suit properties having 1/2 share each in the said properties. Therefore, the first respondent filed a partition suit against the second respondent without making others as a parties. The trial Court while considering the application took note of filing of the suit in the year 2007, the examination of parties till January 2011 closing of evidence of defendant on 25.01.2011. Considering the stage of the suit, the trial Court rejected the said application as it would prolong the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 litigation. Therefore, the said approach of the trial Court cannot be found fault with. 4.It is seen that the petitioner herself was examined as D.W.2 on the side of the defendant and admitted the execution of the release deed dated 16.12.1990, in her evidence. When such is the position, it is not open to the petitioner to approach the trial Court belatedly for her impleadment. It is not as if the petitioner has no knowledge about the pendency of the case. As noted earlier she was also examined as witness and therefore she can not file an application seeking impleadment belatedly. 5.For the reasons stated above, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To The Principal Subordinate Judge, Karur. +1 CC to Mr.M.Vallinayagam, Advocate, Sr.No.6495 gsr C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.512 of 2011 15.03.2011 TR : 28.03.2011 : 2p/3c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/