S GANTHIMATHI Vs. M. MALAIYANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal, dated 25.07.2017 passed by the learned District Munsif, Melur, in I.A. No.557 of 2015 in O.S. No. 259 of 2015.

(2.) The Petitioner/R-1/Plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S. No.259 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur, for declaration and permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, One Late.Malayandi has filed a petition in I.A. No.557 of 2015 in O.S. No. 259 of 2015 under Order 1 Rule 10 to implead him as 5th defendant in the main suit and the same was allowed on 25.07.2017. Against the said order, the revision petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the Court below ought to have dismissed the petition as the petitioner/3rd party is in no way connected in the reliefs sought for in the plaint; he has not right over the property and he has sought to implead in the suit for the purpose of getting evidence to sustain him assumed claim. He further submitted that the Court below ought to have held that the order impugned in the suit is quite contrary to the order passed in W.P.(MD) Nos. 2856 and 4792 of 2013 and the specific directions given to the District Revenue Officer, Madurai District. He further submitted that the Court below ought to have held that the enquiry of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai was finished and he sent his report, dated 0.12.2014 stating that the land is not the Panjami land; it has not been classified or set apart as Panjami land, it was never given possession to Mayazhagan or his son Mayandi or any of his family member. He further submitted that the Court below ought to have held that neither the 3rd party has preferred any appeal or revision nor has filed any suit within three years for setting aside the said order issuing of Patta as per the provisions of the Patta Pass Book Act, (Act 4 of 986). Hence, he prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.