D SUNIL KUMAR Vs. SHAH BUILDERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 28.11.2007, made in I.A.No.11534 of 2006, in O.S.No.8734 of 1996, on the file of the I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

(2.) THE plaintiff in the suit, in O.S.No.8734 of 1996, is the first respondent in the present civil revision petition. THE petitioner herein had filed I.A.No.11534 of 2006, in O.S.No.8734 of 1996, praying that he should be impleaded, as the 10th defendant in the said suit. In the interlocutory application, the petitioner had stated that he had purchased Block No.3 and part of Block No.4 from the first respondent herein, by way of a sale deed, dated 10.10.2005, bearing Document No.2349 of 2005. THE petitioner had submitted that he had purchased 4000 Sq.Ft. of area in Block Nos.3 and 4 at Rundalls Road (E.V.K.Sampath Road), Vepery, Chennai. THEreafter, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property, along with the passage and open space in front of Block Nos.3 and 4 purchased by the petitioner from its erstwhile owner.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed, in I.A.No.11534 of 2006, the averments and allegations of the petitioner have been denied. It has been stated that the interest of the petitioner in the subject matter of the suit is only peripheral and not substantial. The petitioner has not given any valid reason for impleading himself, as a defendant in the suit. The purchase of a portion of the property from the plaintiff will not confer on him any right to implead himself, as a defendant, especially, when the plaintiff had not prayed for any relief against him.