1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09.02.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.244 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 Thabasi .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Branch Manager, The South Indian Bank Limited, Udiyakulangara Branch, Thiruvananthapuram, Amaravilai Post, Thiruvananthapuram District, Kerala State. 2.M.Harikumar 3.M.Sreekha 4.L.Thulasi Bai 5.R.Madhavan Pillai 6.Herbert Cicil 7.Senthilkumar 8.Satheesh .. Respondents Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 24.11.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application No.248 of 2009 in Original Suit No.77 of 2007 by the Sub Court, Kuzhithurai. For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been directed against the order dated 24.11.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application No.248 of 2009 in Original Suit No.77 of 2007 by the Sub Court, Kuzhithurai. 2. The first respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.77 of 2007 on the file of the Court below praying to pass a decree of an equitable mortgage created by the defendants 1 to 4. During pendency of the same, the revision petitioner has come forward with the present petition under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in Interlocutory Application No.248 of 2009 so as to implead him as one of the defendants. The Court below has dismissed the same. Against the dismissal order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred. 3. Considering the nature of the contention urged on the side of the revision petitioner and also considering the relief sought for in Original Suit No.77 of 2007 as well as the order passed by the Court below, 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. The first respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.77 of 2007 on the file of the Court below for getting a decree on the basis of an equitable mortgage alleged to have been executed by the defendants 1 to 4. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that the seventh defendant is an agreement holder and he made over the sale agreement, which stands in his name in favour of the revision petitioner on 10.01.2007. Under the said circumstances, the revision petitioner is also a necessary party in Original Suit No.77 of 2007. The Court below has dismissed the petition filed in Interlocutory https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Application No.248 of 2009 by holding that the revision petitioner is not at all a necessary party to Original Suit No.77 of 2007. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that the seventh defendant has been impleaded as an agreement holder in Original Suit No.77 of 2007 and the revision petitioner has got made over of the sale agreement from the seventh defendant on 10.01.2007 and therefore the revision petitioner is also a necessary party to Original Suit No.77 of 2007 and the Court below without considering the nature of interest of the revision petitioner in hypotheca has erroneously dismissed Interlocutory Application No.248 of 2009 and therefore the dismissal order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. 6. As adverted to in many places, Original Suit No.77 of 2007 has been instituted praying to pass a decree on the basis of an equitable mortgage alleged to have been executed by the defendants 1 to 4. In Original Suit No.77 of 2007, apart from the defendants 1 to 4, defendants 5 to 7 have been impleaded stating that the defendants 5 and 6 are the alienees and seventh defendant is an agreement holder. Considering the fact that Original Suit No.77 of 2007 has been instituted only on the basis of an equitable mortgage, it is needless to say that the defendants 1 to 4 being mortgagors and the defendants 5 and 6 being alienees are necessary parties and the seventh defendant, who is said to be an agreement holder is not at all a necessary party, since he is not having any interest in hypotheca in view of the alleged sale agreement, which stands in his name. The revision petitioner has filed the present petition mainly on the footing that the seventh defendant has made over the sale agreement, which stands in his name to the revision petitioner. Considering the fact that the seventh defendant himself is not having any proprietary interest over hypotheca in view of the sale agreement, which stands in his name, the present revision petitioner is totally unwarranted for better adjudication in Original Suit No.77 of 2007. In short, the revision petitioner is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to Original Suit No.77 of 2007, since he is not having any proprietary interest over hypotheca in view of the alleged made over, which stands in his name. The Court below after considering the contentions urged on either side has rightly dismissed Interlocutory Application No.248 of 2009. In view of the discussion made earlier, this Court has not found any error in the order passed by the Court below and altogether the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs at the stage of admission and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.248 of 2009 in Original Suit No.77 of 2007 by the Sub Court, Kuzhithurai is confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. SD DEPUTY REGISTRAR ( WRITS ) /TRUE COPY/ ASST REGISTRAR smn To ::The Subordiante Judge, Kuzhithurai. DM:2011:MARCH:01:: C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.244 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 2P:2C:; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/