1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.02.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.207 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 Ammal alias Rosammal .. Petitioner Vs. 1.Christudhas 2.Yesudhas 3.Celin Mary 4.Indian Overseas Bank rep. by the Branch Manager, Marthandam P.P.N. Complex, Marthandam Post, Nalloor Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District. 5.Prasannakumar 6.Stella Bai .. Respondents Prayer : Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 02.07.2010 passed in Tr.O.P.No.126 of 2009 by the District Court, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Prabhakaran ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been directed against the order dated 02.07.2010 passed in Tr.O.P.No.126 of 2009 by the District Court, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. 2. The revision petitioner herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.48 of 2006 on the file of the Court below for the reliefs of partition and separate possession, wherein the respondents 1 to 5 herein have been shown as defendants. The sixth respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.158 of 2009 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai against the first respondent herein for the relief of injunction. Considering the fact that Original Suit No.48 of 2006 is pending on the file of the Court below for the reliefs of partition and separate possession, so as to conduct joint trial, the present Tr.O.P.No.126 of 2009 has been filed to withdraw and transfer Original Suit No.158 of 2009 from the file of the First Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai to the file of the Court below. The Court below has dismissed the same mainly on the ground that the sixth respondent in Tr.O.P.No.126 of 2009 is not one of the defendants in Original Suit No.48 of 2006. Against the dismissal order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. Considering the nature of the relief sought for in Tr.O.P.No.126 of 2009 as well as the nature of the order passed therein, notice need not be sent to the respondents and the present Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission. 4. It is an admitted fact that Original Suit No.48 of 2006 has been instituted for the relief of partition and separate possession and the same is pending on the file of the Court below. It is also equally an admitted fact that the sixth respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.158 of 2009 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif's Court, Kuzhithurai for the relief of permanent injunction, wherein the first respondent herein has been shown as sole defendant. It is also equally an admitted fact that the revision petitioner has made an attempt by way of filing a petition under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 so as to implead the sixth respondent herein and others as defendants in Original Suit No.48 of 2006 and the same is pending on the file of the Court below. During pendency of the same, he has come forward with the present petition for getting the relief sought for therein. The Court below has dismissed the same as stated earlier, by way of assigning the reason to the effect that the sixth respondent herein has not at all been impleaded in Original Suit No.48 of 2006. The reason given by the Court below for dismissing the present petition is perfectly correct. In fact, the revision petitioner ought to have filed this type of petition only after allowing the petition, which has been filed under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Therefore it is needless to say that the present petition is totally premature and the relief sought for cannot be granted and the Court below has rightly dismissed the same. 5. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs at the stage of admission and the order passed in Tr.O.P.No.126 of 2009 by the District Court, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil is confirmed. However, the revision petitioner is at liberty to file a similar type of petition after allowing the petition filed under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 so as to implead the proposed respondents mentioned in Interlocutory Application No.309 of 2009. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (L.A) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To The District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. + 1 cc to Mr.P.Prabhakaran, Advocate, SR No.4453 C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.207 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 04.02.2011 smn RJ/14.2.11 2p/3c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/