MEENA Vs. B.ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order dtd. 6/7/2018 made in CMP No.943 of 2016 in A.S.SR.No.22515 of 2016 in O.S.No.10802 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, thereby allowing the petition to grant leave to file an appeal suit.

(2.) The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents 1 to 4 are the proposed appellants. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration, declaring that the General Release Deed dtd. 29/1/1983 as not enforceable and null and void. He also prayed for permanent injunction and declaration declaring that the mortgage created by the second defendant with the seventh defendant in respect of the suit property as null and void. While pending suit, the respondents 1 to 4 filed a petition to implead themselves as a party in the suit in I.A.No.18027 of 2010. Though, it was allowed, the plaintiff failed to carry out the amendment and the respondents 1 to 4 were not put on notice, thereafter, the suit was decreed. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 4 herein sought for leave to file an appeal challenging the Judgment and Decree passed in the suit filed by the petitioner herein and the same was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the respondents 1 to 4 filed a petition in I.A.No.18027 of 2010, after allowing the same, they did not take any steps to carry out the amendment, following to grant of permission for amendment, in the light of Order 1 Rule 10(4)(5) and Order 6 Rule 18 of CPC, on failure of the applicant to carry out the amendment, it will not give any right whatsoever, to the persons, who are permitted to be impleaded, to ask for impleadment, in the appellate stage. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following Judgments :