K. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM Vs. D. RATHINAVEL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANIMADVERTING upon the order dated 10.06.2011 passed by the learned I Additional District Munsif Court, Erode in I.A. No. 939 of 2010 in O.S. No. 574 of 2010, this civil revision petition is focussed. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the lower Court.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) WHILE so, in the pending O.S.574 of 2010, I.A. No. 949 of 2010 was filed seeking injunction by the plaintiffs. However, in that injunction application, D1 and D2 were not added as parties. But the petitioners/plaintiffs cited only D3 and D4 as respondents therein; whereupon D1 and D2 filed application in I.A. No. 39 of 2011 for getting themselves impleaded in I.A. No. 949 of 2010 and it was allowed by the lower Court. However, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the amendment was not carried out, but the main injunction application itself was disposed of as though no counter was filed by D3 and D4, who were R1 and R2 therein. In fact, D1 and D2 should have been arrayed as R3 and R4 in the said injunction application, but that was not done so. The main grievance of the revision petitioner as aired by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the lower Court simply allowed the application without following the procedure, as the very order of the Court itself was not adhered to by the same Court and the petitioners therein in that injunction application also did not take steps to array D1 and D2 as R3 and R4 in the injunction application. As such, I am of the view that no notice to other side is required. Believing the representation of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the narration made by him, I would like to pass the following order: