PORKALAI Vs. RAMANUJAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.232 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Villupuram. This is a suit for partition. When the case was in the part-heard stage, she filed an application under Section 151 of CPC requesting the Court to re-open the case. In fact the case was posted for reply arguments at that time.

(2.) IN the affidavit, she has mentioned that since the defendants were coming forward for settlement of the suit dispute and the properties were settled by her in favour of her even prior to the suit and the purchasers and her daughters were pressing her, she has come forward with this petition, getting afraid of the dismissal of the suit for non-joinder of necessary parties. Their non-impleadment in the suit is not at all wilful nor wanton and hence they have to be impleaded as parties to the suit. For this purpose, the case may be re-opened.

(3.) THE learned counsel Mr.T.Dhanyakumar would submit that since the proposed parties are having interest over the suit properties, they may be impleaded as parties. THE suit was filed in to the Court on 01.06.2003. It is true that the recording of evidence is over and the arguments of both sides were also heard by the Court. THE case was posted for advancing the reply arguments and at that time, this petition has been filed. Even though it is a belated stage for a party to file an application in this nature, the circumstances of the case have to be looked into. Firstly, the transactions as mentioned in the counter of the respondents took place anterior to the filing of the suit. THE settlement deeds and the sale deed came to existence on 05.07.2002 and 27.06.2002 as evident from Exs.B18 to B20. Even prior to filing of the suit, substantial right in the properties have been transferred to some other persons by the plaintiff. It is mistake on the part of the plaintiff in not revealing the fact in the plaint. However, for this reason, final proper adjudication of the case should not suffer. THE right of all the parties in the suit properties have to be adjudicated at the final hearing of the case and they have to be settled in order to accord a quietus in the matter. In view of this matter, I am of the considered view that impleading of the parties in this case is very much essential and for the said purpose, the case has to be re-opened. Hence the order challenged before this Court has to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside.