High Court · 2025

C.R.P.(PD)Nos.4243 & 4247 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 10.09.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN C.R.P.(PD)Nos.4243 & 4247 of 2025and Caveat No.5013 of 2024and C.M.P.Nos.21828 & 21835 of 2025 1.Sakthivel2.Geetha3.Senthil4.Divya ...Petitioners in both CRPs Vs.1.M.A.Abuthalif @ Shet2.Arumugam ...Respondents in both CRPs3.Rathinasamy4.S.Palanisamy ...Respondents in CRP.No.4243/2025 Prayer in C.R.P.(PD)No.4243 of 2025 : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Fair and Final Order dated 12.08.2024 made in I.A.No.86 of 2024 in O.S.No.177 of 2013 on the file of the Learned Principal District Munsif, Tiruppur.Prayer C.R.P.(PD)No.4247 of 2025: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Fair and Final Order dated 10.06.2025 made in I.A.No.766 of 2024 in O.S.No.177 of 2013 on the file of the Learned Principal District Munsif, Tiruppur.1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)Nos.4243 & 4247 of 2025For Petitioners : Mr.N.S.Suganthan in both CRPsFor Respondents in CRP.No.4243/2025:Mr.S.S.Swaminathan for R3COMMON ORDERThe unsuccessful plaintiffs have preferred this revision petition in CRP (PD)No.4243 of 2025.2.The brief facts of the case:(i).The suit in O.S.No.177 of 2013 is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants, agents, subordinates, relatives and every one claiming under them from in any way interfering the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in the suit properties. (ii).At the stage of trial, the plaintiffs have filed an application in I.A.No.86 of 2024 in O.S.No.177 of 2013 under Order I Rule 10 and under Section 151 of C.P.C., to implead the proposed parties as necessary parties in the suit. (iii).Upon considering the arguments on either side, the Court 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)Nos.4243 & 4247 of 2025below vide order dated 12.08.2024 dismissed the application on the ground that the proposed parties purchased 0.41 ¼ acre of land from the second defendant/Arumugam on 02.01.2018 and hence, the cause of action pleaded by the revision petitioners/plaintiffs in plaint, particularly, in paragraph No.9 will not attract the proposed parties because they have purchased the properties after filing of the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred the revision petition in CRP (PD)No.4243 of 2025.(iv).Unsuccessful plaintiffs have also preferred another CRP.(PD)No.4247 of 2025. (v).The plaintiffs have filed a petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint in I.A.No.766 of 2024 in O.S.No.177 of 2013. Upon hearing both sides, the Court below vide order dated 10.06.2025, dismissed the application on the ground that the person being a party, no relief can be granted in the suit against a such person. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiffs have preferred the Civil Revision Petition in CRP.(PD)No.4247 of 2025.3.It is seen from the records, the plaintiffs have filed an affidavit in 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)Nos.4243 & 4247 of 2025support of the petition filed in I.A.No.766 of 2024 in O.S.No.177 of 2013, wherein it has been stated that during the pendency of the suit, the second defendant sold the suit property to the proposed parties on 02.08.2018. The proposed parties have demolished the suit house property on 28.03.2022. The plaintiffs have preferred a revision against the order passed in I.A.No.86 of 2024 dated 12.08.2024, there is no suit building mentioned in suit schedule property which was demolished by the subsequent purchasers. Hence, it is necessary to amend the relief for damages. The defendants 1 and 2 have filed their objections wherein it has been stated that the plaintiffs have filed an application to disturb the peaceful possession of Rathinasamy and S.Palanisamy who purchased the suit properties from the second defendant and the said Rathinasamy and S.Palanisamy not related to the suit property.4.Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submit that pending suit, the second defendant/Arumugam sold the suit property and other connected properties to the proposed parties viz., Rathinasamy and S.Palanisamy on 02.08.2018. Thereafter, the proposed parties demolished the house property on 28.03.2022. In this regard, the revision petitioners have lodged a Police complaint and therefore, the 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)Nos.4243 & 4247 of 2025proposed parties are necessary to decide the issue involved in the suit. Without considering the nature of relief sought for by the revision petitioners, the Court below has dismissed the application which is not sustainable in law.5.Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent would submit that the proposed parties have filed a suit against the revision petitioners in O.S.No.311 of 2021 and the same is pending for defendants' side evidence. Further would submit that the description of the suit property and the properties purchased by the proposed parties are different and there is no necessity to implead the proposed parties in the suit proceedings.6.On perusal of records, it is seen that the suit is filed as against the defendants viz., M.A.Abuthalif @ Shet and Arumugam for the relief of permanent injunction not to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. It is also seen that the suit was posted for trial. At this juncture, the revision petitioners have chosen to file the present application to implead the proposed properties as necessary parties in the suit proceedings. 7.On perusal of records, it is seen from the plaint that the plaintiffs 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)Nos.4243 & 4247 of 2025have stated that the cause of action arose on 10.04.2013 and the defendants 1 and 2 viz., M.A.Abuthalif @ Shet and Arumugam made an attempt to dispose of the plaintiffs from the suit property for the unlawful needs. 8.For better appreciation, the description of the properties mentioned in the plaint is extracted hereunder:mapl;lk; vz;1 jpUg;g{h; tl;lk;. k';fyk; fpuhkk; f/r/269/V be/fhiy g[[/V/1/32y; g[/V/0/54 1-3 cs;s tptrha g{kpapy; 4/25 g{kpia ny mt[l; bra;J tpw;gid bra;J tUtjpy; io vk;/V/nrl; vd;fpw vk/V/mg[jhypg; vd;gtUf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l irl; bek;gh;fs; 17. 24f;F 5 brd;l; fhypaplk;. kw;Wk; ,jpy; fl;oa[s;s fpHf;F½ thry; M';fpy; nghl;L XL nta;e;j tlf;F thry; tPL kw;Wk; ,jpy; cs;s khtif kutif rfpjk;/mapl;lk; vz;2 jpUg;g{h; tl;lk;. k';fyk; fpuhkk; f/r/269/V be/fhiy g[[/V/1/32y; g[/V/0/54 1-3 cs;s tptrha g{kpapy; 4/25 g{kpia ny mt[l; bra;J tpw;gid bra;J tUtjpy; io vk;/V/nrl; vd;fpw vk/V/mg[jhypg; vd;gtUf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l irl; bek;gh;fs; 45 & 36 f;F 5 brd;l; fhypaplk;. kw;Wk; ,jpy; fl;oa[s;s½ fpHf;Fthry; Xiy nta;e;j tPL kw;Wk; ,jpy; cs;s khtif kutif rfpjk;/9.As per the averments pleaded in the plaint, the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property which is not in dispute and the proposed parties have also filed a suit against the revision petitioners in O.S.No.311 of 2021 and the same is pending for 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)Nos.4243 & 4247 of 2025defendants' side evidence.10.The Court below has rightly come to the conclusion that the proposed parties purchased 0.41 ¼ acre of land from the second defendant on 02.01.2018 and the cause of action pleaded by the plaintiffs will not attract the proposed parties since they have purchased the properties after filing of the suit.11.In view of the above, no reason warrants to interfere with the orders passed by the Court below and accordingly, the civil revision petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected caveat petition and miscellaneous petitions are closed.10.09.2025 Index : Yes/ NoSpeaking (or) Non Speaking OrderNeutral Citation: Yes/NopamToThe Principal District Munsif, Tiruppur.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)Nos.4243 & 4247 of 2025M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.pamC.R.P.(PD)Nos.4243 & 4247 of 202510.09.20258/8