1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.02.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.58 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 Lathiba Beevi .. Petitioner Vs. 1.State of Tamil Nadu through the District Collector, District Collector's Office, Ramanathapuram. 2.The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Vandikara Street, Ramanathapuram. 3.Mohamed Iqbal .. Respondents Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 26.10.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application No.1287 of 2004 in Original Suit No.364 of 2004 by the District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arumugam For Respondents : Mr.B.K.Rajendran 1 and 2 Addl. Govt. Pleader For Respondent No.3 : Mr.P.Senthur Pandian ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been directed against the order dated 26.10.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application No.1287 of 2004 in Original Suit No.364 of 2004 by the District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram. 2. The revision petitioner herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.364 of 2004 on the file of the Court below for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction, wherein the present respondents 1 and 2 have been shown as defendants. During pendency of the same, the third respondent herein as petitioner has filed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Interlocutory Application No.1287 of 2004 on the file of the Court below under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to implead him as one of the defendants in Original Suit No.364 of 2004. The Court below has allowed the same. Against the order passed by the Court below, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that Original Suit No.364 of 2004 has been instituted for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction and the specific stand taken on the side of the revision petitioner/plaintiff is that the suit property has been settled in her favour on the basis of the settlement deed mentioned in the plaint and under the said circumstances presence of the third respondent/petitioner in Interlocutory Application No.1287 of 2004 is totally unwarranted and the Court below without considering the nature of the relief sought for in Original Suit No.364 of 2004 as well as the nature of title claimed on the side of the revision petitioner has erroneously allowed Interlocutory Application No.1287 of 2004 and therefore the order passed by the Court below is liable to be interfered with. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent/petitioner in Interlocutory Application No.1287 of 2004 has contended that the suit property is comprised in Survey No.327/33 and the same is nothing, but a poromboke land wherein a common pathway is in existence and the same is being used by him and others and since Original Suit No.364 of 2004 has been instituted for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction, presence of the third respondent/petitioner in Interlocutory Application No.1287 of 2004 is very much essential and under the said circumstances, the Court below has allowed the petition in question and therefore the order passed by the Court below need not be interfered with. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader has contended that the suit property is comprised in Survey No.327/33 and the same is nothing, but a Government poromboke land and since the suit property belongs to the Government, presence of the third respondent/ petitioner in Interlocutory Application No.1287 of 2004 is totally unwarranted and the Court below has erroneously allowed the petition in question and therefore the order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. 6. On the basis of the divergent submissions made by either counsel, the Court has to look into as to whether the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.1287 of 2004 in Original Suit No.364 of 2004 by the Court below is perfectly correct or the same requires interference? 7. It is an admitted fact that Original Suit No.364 of 2004 has been instituted for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction. The definite case of the revision petitioner/ plaintiff is that she derived title to the suit property by virtue of the settlement deed alleged to have been executed by her mother. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 specific case of the respondents 1 and 2 is that the suit property is comprised in Survey No.327/33 and the same is nothing, but a Government poromboke land. The specific case of the third respondent/petitioner in Interlocutory Application No.1287 of 2004 is that in the suit property a common pathway is in existence and the same is being used by him and others. Considering the fact that Original Suit No.364 of 2004 has been instituted for getting the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction and also considering that the defendants 1 and 2 have taken a definite stand to the effect that the suit property is nothing, but a poromboke land and also considering that the third respondent/ petitioner in Interlocutory Application No.1287 of 2004 has contended that in the suit property there is a common pathway, it is needless to say that the presence of the third respondent/ petitioner in Interlocutory Application No.1287 of 2004 is very much essential for giving complete adjudication in Original Suit No.364 of 2004 and further by way of impleading the third respondent/petitioner in Interlocutory Application No.1287 of 2004, the nature of the claim made on the side of the revision petitioner would not be militated. Therefore viewing from any angle, the order passed by the Court below is perfectly correct and the same does not require any interference and altogether the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.1287 of 2004 in Original Suit No.364 of 2004 by the District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram is confirmed. However, the District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram is directed to dispose of Original Suit No.364 of 2004 before the end of June, 2011 and report the same to the Registry without fail. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Writs) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To The District Munsif, Ramanathapuram. Copy to: The Section Officer, Judicial Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. (for watching the Report) +1 CC to Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Advocate (SR.No.9512) C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.58 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 22.02.2011 smn NSV/7.3.11/3P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/