L SUNDER Vs. K S GOPALAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision petition has been filed against the order, dated 8.2.2010, made in I.A.No.1876 of 2010, in O.S.No.6618 of 2004, on the file of the I Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

(2.) The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit, in O.S.No.6618 of 2004. The said suit had been filed by the petitioners for declaration of title and for recovery of vacant possession of the plaint schedule property, from the defendant, who is the first respondent herein. The petitioners had filed the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.1876 of 2010, to implead one Senthil Kumar, the subsequent purchaser of the suit property, as the second defendant in the suit. By an order, dated 8.2.2010, the interlocutory application filed by the petitioners had been dismissed by the learned I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had stated that the trial Court had dismissed the application filed by the petitioners stating that the second respondent proposed party cannot be said to be a subsequent purchaser, as he had not purchased the property in question, during the pendency of the suit. As he is said to have purchased the suit property, by way of a sale deed, on 14.6.2007, registered as a document in the Office of the Sub Registrar Ashok Nagar, Chennai, on 3.8.2007, as document No.1990/07, when no suit was pending on the file of the I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, as the suit filed by the petitioners had been dismissed for default, on 10.11.2005. the trial Court had also stated that if the petitioners are having a cause of action against the second respondent, it has to be established only by way of filing a fresh suit. It had also been stated that if the second respondent is added as a party to the suit, it would open the floodgate for subsequent purchasers, who may not be proper or necessary parties to the suit, to implead themselves as parties to the suit. Further, the application has been filed by the petitioners only for the purpose of dragging on the proceedings in the suit.