T G RAMACHANDRAN Vs. DEIVASIGAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD. This revision petition filed under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure , is canvassed by the unsuccessful plaintiff who lost his case in totality before the trial court for the relief of declaration of his undivided share in the landed property and consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants who are supposed to be the other co- parcener s. It appears from the arguments made by the Bar for respective parties that in an appeal preferred by the plaintiff who is the revision petitioner herein, a petition in I. A. No. 143 of 1990 was filed before the appellate judge to implea d the proposed ten persons being the proper and necessary parties as they were held as not proper necessary parties by the trial court and for the said reason also, along with other grounds, the trial court dismissed the suit. Admittedly, the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner herein is pending. While disposing the abovesai d application, learned appellate judge had rejected the application by saying that though the proposed parties ought to have been added as parties before the disposal of the suit by the trial court itself and having failed to add them as parties to the suit, venturing to add them as parties in the appeal is too late and has become out of time and further they are not the proper and necessary parties. Aggrieved at this, this revision has been filed and being canvassed.

(2.) WHILE perusing the grounds of revision, Mr. Narayanaswami , learned counsel on behalf of the revision petitioner contended before me that since the reliefs prayed for in the suit were one for the declaration of the plaintiff's undivided share and consequential relief of injunction against the then defendants, the plaintiff thought that they were unnecessary and not proper parties and that was the reason why have not been added as parties. But however, while the judgment of the trial court is being canvassed in the appeal on the basis of other grounds also to avoid the technical defect, I. A. No. 143 of 1990 was filed and consequently the impugned order under this revision was passed. The second contention of learned counsel for the revision petitioner was that there was no bar or time fixed by the law or enactments for the courts to add any party whose presence before a litigation is found necessary and essential to adjudicate upon the matter in a given case more efficaciously and therefore the filing of the application in I. A. No. 143 of 1990 before the appellate court cannot be rejected on that ground.

(3.) IN the result, the civil revision petition is partly allowed to the extent mentioned above. No costs. .