BAKKIYAM Vs. SENGODAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision petition has been preferred against the order, dated 14.12.2009, made in Interlocutory Application Nos.830 and 831 of 2009, in Original Suit No.347 of 2005, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sankagiri.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has stated that the trial Court, had erred in dismissing the applications of the petitioners, who are the defendants in the suit, in O.S.No.347 of 2005, filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, to implead the respondents 2 and 3 (proposed respondents) as defendants 4 and 5 in the suit, without properly considering the facts and circumstances of the case. THE trial Court has erred in holding that the plaintiff alone, being the "dominos litis", could choose to implead the parties to the suit and that the defendants have no right to do so. Even though the petitioners have shown that the proposed parties are the legal heirs of the deceased Vaithi, who are entitled to inherit the share in the properties, the trial Court had chosen to dismiss the Interlocutory Application Nos.830 and 831 of 2009, filed by the petitioners. Hence, the order, dated 14.12.2009, passed by the trial Court, is improper and invalid. He had also submitted that there is no clear finding by the trial Court, in its order, dated 14.12.2009, to show that the proposed parties are not necessary parties to the suit. 2. THE learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure code,1908, enables the trial Court, to implead the necessary parties to the suit. However, inspite of the petitioners claiming that the proposed parties are necessary parties to the suit, the trial Court had passed an order, dated 14.12.2009, dismissing the Interlocutory Application Nos.830 and 831 2009.

(3.) IN view of the reasons stated in the order passed by the trial Court, on 14.12.2009, in INterlocutory Application Nos.830, 831 of 2009, in Original Suit No.347 of 2007, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the said order, dated 14.12.2009. Hence, these Civil Revision Petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.