1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:17.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.550 of 2011 and M.P(MD)NO.1 of 2011 S.Packiyaraj .. Petitioner/Revision Petitioner -vs- 1.Rajamuthu 2.Nesadurai 3.Selvaraj 4.Inbakoothan 5.Mahendran .. Respondents/Respondents/Defendants PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 19.11.2010 made in I.A.No.120 of 2009 in O.S.No.39 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Siva Thilakar ORDER The plaintiff is the petitioner before this Court, who is aggrieved with regard to the dismissal of application filed by him to implead the proposed party as the fifth defendant in the suit. 2.The case of the petitioner is that the original suit in O.S.No.39 of 2003 was filed for partition against the respondents 1 and 2 herein. Pending disposal of the above suit, the defendants 3 and 4 purchased the properties and at the instance of the petitioner herein, defendants 3 and 4 were impleaded as per the order of the trial Court dated 09.04.2007. 3.Pending disposal of the suit, it is contended by the petitioner that the suit property was sold to proposed party/fifth respondent herein. Therefore, the petitioner took out an application to implead the third party purchaser. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court along with cost of Rs.500/-. The said order is being challenged before this Court. 4.Mr.S.Siva Thilakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that the trial Court looked into the matters which are not pleaded in the application as well as in the counter affidavit and dismissed the application along with cost of Rs.500/-. It is submitted that the respondents have admitted in their counter affidavit about the purchase of the property by fifth respondent herein. When such is the position, the trial Court should have ordered impleadment of the fifth respondent herein as fifth defendant. He further submitted that earlier CRP.No.667 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner and the same is pending before this Court, whereas, the learned Judge wrongly observed that the revision petition was withdrawn by the petitioner. On that ground alone the order is liable to be set aside. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the trial Court is not justified in enforcing a cost of Rs.500/-, while dismissing the application. 6.It is seen that the suit was filed for partition in the year 2003. During the trial, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 on 28.11.2006 and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked and thereafter only he has taken out the application to implead the third and fourth defendants. They were impleaded as per order dated 09.04.2007. Thereafter, the issues which were cast or recast and again posted for trial. 7.Thereafter, D.W.1 was examined on 22.11.2007 and Exs.D7 and D8 were marked. When the matter was posted for D.W.1’s cross-examination by the petitioner herein, without cross-examining D.W.1 the petitioner was prolonging the matter. Thereafter he filed I.A.No.31 of 2008 to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit and the said application was dismissed on 06.02.2008. 8.The said order passed on 06.02.2008 is already challenged before this Court in CRP.No.667 of 2008 and the same is stated to be pending before this Court. Subsequently on various dates from 04.04.2008 to 31.07.2008, the matter was being adjourned continuously for D.W.4’s cross-examination. Only at that stage, the petitioner again took out petition in I.A.No.120 of 2009 to implead the fifth respondent on the ground that he purchased the suit property. 9.It is seen from the affidavit filed before this Court that no material details regarding the sale like date of sale deed were not mentioned. On that score alone, the said application is liable to be dismissed and the same was rightly done by the trial Court. when a party takes out an application to implead the subsequent purchaser, the said party is expected to give material details to sustain the prayer sought for. However, the petitioner miserably failed to do the same and the same was rightly noted in Paragraph No.6 of the impugned order. 10.The learned Judge also took note of the fact that a copy of the sale deed was also not produced before the trial Court and the trial Court is justified in dismissing the impleading application on the ground that purchase was made pending suit. As stated above, even a sale made pending disposal of the suit, is hit pendente lite and it is not necessary that the subsequent purchaser has to be implead in the suit proceedings. 11.As stated above, the third and fourth respondents are also subsequent purchaser and they were impleaded already. If the subsequent purchasers are to be made as a parties, there will be no end and the original proceedings cannot reach a finality. It is only a successful tool adopted by the petitioner to prolong the litigation. Therefore, the trial Court is justified in awarding cost while dismissing the petition. This Court is absolutely is in agreement with the views expressed by the learned District Munsif, who has rightly decided the matter. Though this Court intends to slap heavy cost on the petitioner, in view of the award of cost by the trial Court, this Court is not inclined to any more cost taking lenient view in this matter. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 12.In view of the same, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Principal District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri. +1CC TO MR.S.SIVATHILAKAR, ADVOCATE SR.6889 Ps SR : 30.03.2011 : 3p/3c C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.550 of 2011 17.03.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/