TIRUNELVELI JUNCTION HIGH ROAD KEMALAMUTHU CHARITIES KATTIDA VADAGAI THARKAL SANGAM THROUGH ITS SECRETARY Vs. SETHURAMALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dt. 12.03.2001 made in I.A. No. 561 of 2000 in O.S. No. 332 of 2000 by the Court of first Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli, thereby the said court in an application filed by the first respondent herein under Order 1, Rule 10(2) and Section 151 C.P.C. has allowed the said application ordering to implead the petitioner therein as 12th defendant in the suit deciding that he is a necessary party to the proceedings.

(2.) THE first respondent has filed the said application under Order 1, Rule 10(2) and Section 151 C.P.C. seeking to implead as 12th defendant to the suit in which the revision petitioner has filed the suit against the respondents 2 to 12 as defendants 1 to 11 for a permanent injunction in which the first respondent in his application filed before the Lower Court would plead that Door No. 99 shop was initially taken on lease by his father for the purpose of selling flowers and after his death, since the business was not able to be carried on, the petitioner therein was running a tea stall therein and thereafter some other business, investing money in it; that since the petitioner therein was a Government servant, he allowed his younger brother to run the shop paying the tax himself; that it seems his brother did not give the true account and hence the petitioner therein filed a suit in O.S. No. 149 of 1997 in the court of Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli which is pending; that his brother posing to be the secretary of the petitioner's Sangam has furnished information in his statement to the effect that he is only the lessee of the shop; that the pendency of the suit is not at all brought to the picture in the suit and that on such averments, the first respondent herein seeking to implead him as a party to the suit proceedings as 12th defendant has filed the said application before the Lower Court.

(3.) THE circumstances under which and the facts in consideration of which the above conclusions arrived at by the learned Judge are entirely different from the set of facts involved in this case and therefore, the decision taken in the said case does not become applicable to the facts of the case in hand and hence the said judgment becomes inapplicable to the present case.