1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:29.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2199 of 2011 Thangappan :Petitioner -Vs- 1.S.R.V.Krishnamoorthy 2.K.Mahalakshmi 3.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 4.The Tashildhar, Dindigul Taluk, Dindigul. 5.The Revenue Inspector, Dindigul Town (South), Dindigul. 6.M/s.S.R.V. & Co.represented by its Managing Partner V.R.Balasubramaniam. 7.M.Malaiyandi 8.V.R.Arumugam 9.V.R.Balasubramaniam :Respondents Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 08.11.2011 passed in unnumbered Interlocutory Application No.- of 2011 in Original Suit No.51 of 2010 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul. For Petitioner:Mr.D.Venkatesh ORDER The order of return passed in unnumbered Interlocutory Application No.- of 2011 in Original Suit No.51 of 2010 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul is being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2.The respondents 1 and 2 herein as plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit No.51 of 2010 on the file of the Court below for the relief of declaration and also for the reliefs of setting aside attachment and permanent injunction. During pendency of the same, the present petition has been filed by the revision petitioner as petitioner under Order I, Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to implead him as one of the defendants, since his right is being questioned in the suit. The Court below has returned the same stating that the present petition is not legally maintainable in view of the reliefs sought for in the suit. Against the order of return, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that the revision petitioner is one of the employees of the fourth defendant firm and since the firm has failed to pay the benefits, which are payable to him, a relevant proceeding has been initiated before the concerned Labour Court, wherein an award has been passed and subsequently the revision petitioner has filed claim petition and since the fourth defendant has failed to pay the benefits, which are payable to the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner has sought the assistance of the defendants 1 to 3 and now in order to deter the right of the revision petitioner, the present suit has been instituted for the reliefs sought for therein and since the interest of the petitioner is involved in Original https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Suit No.51 of 2010, presence of the revision petitioner is very much essential, but the Court below without considering the nature of the reliefs sought for in Original Suit No.51 of 2010 as well as the nature of interest involved therein, has erroneously returned the petition in question and therefore the order of return passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. 4.For considering the contentions putforth on the side of the revision petitioner, it would be apposite to look into the reliefs sought for in Original Suit No.51 of 2010. The first and foremost relief is to declare that the revenue recovery proceedings taken by the defendants 1 to 3 in respect of the dues payable to the revision petitioner are invalid and also to set aside the attachment dated 19.12.2009 and also for passing permanent injunction. Even from a cursory look of the reliefs sought for in Original Suit No.51 of 2010, it is easily discernible that the interest of the revision petitioner is involved in Original Suit No.51 of 2010 Considering the fact that the interest of the revision petitioner is involved in Original Suit No.51 of 2010, the revision petitioner is a necessary party in Original Suit No.51 of 2010. The Court below without considering the nature of the reliefs sought for in Original Suit No.51 of 2010, has erroneously returned the petition in question and therefore the order of return passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside and the revision petitioner can be directed to re-present the petition in question in the Court below. 5.In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed without costs and the order of return passed in unnumbered Interlocutory Application No.- of 2011 in Original Suit No.51 of 2010 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul is set aside and the revision petitioner is directed to re-present the petition in question and the Court below is directed to number the same, if it is otherwise in order. The Registry is directed to return the original petition. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Writs) / TRUE COPY / Assistant Registrar To: The Principal District Munsif, Dindigul. Copy To: The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Smn RP/10.12.2011/2P/3C. C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.2199 of 2011 29.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/