C.Sivakumar v. A.PalanisamyN.Subramanian (Died)2.S.Padhmanabhan3.S.Jayammal4.J.LathaM.Chinnasamy (Died)5.C.Rajeswari6.M.Arumugam,7.A.Nandagopal

CRP No. 3847 of 2026__________Page1 of 4IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 15-07-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSECRP No. 3847 of 2026C.Sivakumar..Petitioner(s)Vs1.A.PalanisamyN.Subramanian (Died)

S.Padhmanabhan3.S.Jayammal4.J.LathaM.Chinnasamy (Died)5.C.Rajeswari6.M.Arumugam,7.A.Nandagopal..Respondent(s)Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 12.03.2026 made in IA No. 20 of 2025 in OS No. 422 of 2017 on the file of the Ld. II nd Additional Sub Court, Erode. For Petitioner(s):Mr.R.T.VishnuFor Respondent(s): https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 3847 of 2026__________Page2 of 4ORDERThis Civil Revision Petition (CRP) has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the II Additional Sub-Court, Erode, in I.A.No.20 of 2025 in O.S.No.422 of 2017, dated 12.03.2026. In the aforesaid order, the application filed by the petitioner, who is the third defendant in the suit, seeking to implead the respondents 6 and 7/respondents 8 and 9, as party defendants in the suit, has been dismissed by holding that the proposed parties are not necessary parties for the adjudication of the suit in O.S.No.422 of 2017.2. Admittedly, the petitioner is the third defendant in the suit. The suit has been filed by the respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs seeking for declaration and permanent injunction. There seems to be a boundary dispute between the parties. The initial burden to prove the same is on the plaintiffs, who have filed the suit. The trial Court has also rightly given credence to the status of dominus litis while dismissing the petitioner’s application seeking to implead the respondents 6 and 7/respondents 8 and 9 as party defendants in the suit.

The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his submissions relied upon a judgment and decree dated 21.06.2012 passed in O.S.Nos.601 and 628 of 2009 pertaining to the dispute between the plaintiffs and the proposed parties, who were sought to be impleaded in I.A.No.20 of 2025. He would submit that since the proposed parties were not impleaded as https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 3847 of 2026__________Page3 of 4party defendants by the plaintiffs in the suit, there became a necessity for the petitioner/3rd defendant to file impleading application to implead the proposed parties as party defendants in the suit. He would submit that the trial Court did not take note of the said fact while dismissing the application filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.20 of 2025.