1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.01.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.39 and 40 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION Nos.1 and 1 of 2011 1.Parvathiammal Athilingam (late) 2.A.Selvakumar 3.A.Puthuraja 4.Devi Selvi 5.Palani Selvi 6.A.Chakravarthy 7.Ponniruppasamy .. Petitioners in both CRPs. Vs. 1.R.Ananda Subramanian 2.R.Kuttisamy .. Respondents in both CRPs. Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the fair and decretal orders dated 12.07.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application No.168 of 2009 in Appeal Suit No.49 of 2009 and in Interlocutory Application No.167 of 2009 in Appeal Suit No.48 of 2009 by the Sub Court, Theni. For Petitioners :Ms.J.Padmaavathy Devi in both CRPs. For Respondent : Mr.Rajesh Saravanan No.1 in both CRPs. COMMON ORDER The impugned orders dated 12.07.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application Nos.167 and 168 of 2009 in Appeal Suit Nos.48 and 49 of 2009 by the Sub Court, Theni are being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petitions. 2. The first respondent in Civil Revision Petition No.39 of 2011 as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.216 of 2006 for the reliefs of declaration, recovery of possession and also for arrears of rent in the trial Court. The revision petitioners in Civil Revision Petition No.39 of 2011 as plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit No.194 of 2007 for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction on the file of the trial Court. The trial Court after considering the available evidence on record has decreed the suit filed in Original Suit No.216 of 2006 as prayed for and dismissed the suit filed in Original Suit No.194 of 2007. Against the Judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No.194 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 of 2007, Appeal Suit No.49 of 2009 and against the Judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No.216 of 2006, Appeal Suit No.48 of 2009 have been preferred on the file of the first appellate Court. 3. During pendency of Appeal Suit Nos.48 and 49 of 2009, the revision petitioners as petitioners have filed Interlocutory Application Nos.167 and 168 of 2009 under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to implead the proposed party mentioned therein in both the suits as one of the defendants. The first appellate Court after considering the rival contentions raised on either side has dismissed both the petitions. Against the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.168 of 2009, Civil Revision Petition No.39 of 2011 and against the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.167 of 2009, Civil Revision Petition No.40 of 2011 have been preferred. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has strenuously contended that the plaintiffs in Original Suit No.194 of 2007 have given Rs.15,000/- to the defendant therein for the purpose of purchasing the suit property and due to that an oral sale agreement has come into existence and subsequently it is learnt that the suit property has been allotted to the share of the proposed party viz., Yuvaraj Krishnan, who is none other than the brother of the first respondent in Civil Revision Petitions and in order to implead him as one of the defendants, these petitions have been filed, but the first appellate Court without considering the contention urged on the side of the revision petitioners has erroneously dismissed the petitions filed in Interlocutory Application No.167 and 168 of 2009 and therefore the orders passed by the first appellate Court are liable to be interfered with. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has contended that in the plaint filed in original Suit No.194 of 2007, it has been clinchingly stated that the plaintiffs therein have entered into an oral sale agreement with the defendant therein for the purpose of purchasing the suit property and nowhere in the plaint filed in Original Suit No.194 of 2007, it has been stated about the role alleged to have been played by the proposed party viz., Yuvaraj Krishnan and the Court below after considering all the contentions raised on either side has rightly dismissed Interlocutory Application Nos.167 and 168 of 2009 and therefore the orders passed by the Court below are not liable to be interfered with. 6. As enunciated earlier, Original Suit No.194 of 2007 has been instituted for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction mainly on the ground that the plaintiffs therein have advanced a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the defendant therein so as to purchase the suit property and thereby an oral sale agreement has come into existence between them. The first respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.216 of 2006 for the reliefs of declaration, recovery of possession and also for arrears of rent. The trial Court has decreed the suit filed in Original Suit No.216 of 2006 and dismissed the suit filed in Original Suit No.194 of 2007. During appellate stage, these petitions have been filed so as to implead the said proposed party viz., Yuvaraj Krishnan as one of the defendants in both the suits. 7. For the purpose of analysing the contentions raised on the side https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 of the revision petitioners, the Court has to look into paragraph No.4 of the plaint filed in Original Suit No.194 of 2007, wherein it has been clearly stated that prior to seventeen years, the plaintiffs have given Rs.15,000/- to the defendant and thereby an oral sale agreement has come into existence between them. In fact this Court has perused the entire averments made in the plaint filed in Original Suit No.194 of 2007. Nowhere it has been stated about the role alleged to have been played by the proposed party viz., Yuvaraj Krishnan. Since there is no specific pleading in the plaint filed in Original Suit No.194 of 2007, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that the proposed party is a necessary party for the purpose of deciding the reliefs sought for therein. 8. The Court below after considering all the contentions raised on either side has rightly come to the conclusion that the proposed party is neither a necessary party nor a proper party so as to decide the lis which exists between the parties. In view of the discussion made earlier, this Court has not found any error or illegality in the orders passed by the Court below and altogether these Civil Revision Petitions deserve to be dismissed. 9. In fine, these Civil Revision Petitions deserve dismissal and accordingly are dismissed without costs and the orders passed in Interlocutory Application Nos.167 and 168 of 2009 in Appeal Suit Nos.48 and 49 of 2009 by the Sub Court, Theni are confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Subordinate Judge,Theni. +1 CC TO MR. B. RAJESH SARAVANAN, ADVOCATE S.R NO. 908 COPY TO: THE SECTION OFFICER, VR SECTION, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI COMMON ORDER PASSED IN C.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos.39 and 40 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 1 of 2011 10.01.2011 smn PAM 22.01.2011/4C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/