MATCHAKALAI Vs. VICTORIA EDWARD HALL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the Principal District Munsif, Madurai dated 09. 07. 2001 in I. A. SR. No. 10559 of 2001 in O. S. No. 37 of 2001. Aggrieved over recording of Joint Compromise Memo filed by the Plaintiffs and the defendants and dismissal of the Suit and the Order made in I. A. SR. No. 10559 of 2001, the Third Party � Matchakalai has preferred this Civil Revision petition.

(2.) WHEN the Revision Petition was taken up for hearing, the Revision Petitioner represented by Counsel Mr. P. Senthur Pandian. Notice has been sent to Respondents / Plaintiff and the Defendants, who were party in the suit O. S. No. 37 of 2001. Notice sent and service awaited. Since Suit in o. S. No. 37 of 2001 itself has been disposed of recording the Compromise Memo, the hearing of the Respondents is not necessary.

(3.) I. A. SR. No. 10559 of 2001:- This Petition was filed by the Revision Petitioner � third Parties viz. , R. Thangavel, M. Ramasubramanian, R. Matchakalai and V. Kannan praying the Court to implead them as Defendants 13 to 16. The Petitioners / proposed parties have contended that as against the direction of the High Court in C. R. P. No. 556 of 2001, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants have been trying to compromise the matter with the 13th Respondent / Plaintiff. According to the third Parties, if the matter is allowed to be compromised, the Members interest would be greatly affected. It is further alleged that the Plaintiff and the defendants are trying to compromise the Suit for their personal enrichment at the cost of D-1-Society's resources and against the findings of the High Court, madras. Hence, the Petition in I. A. SR. No. 10559 of 2001 was filed on 18. 06. 2001 before the Principal District Munsif, Madurai to implead the Third Parties to the proceedings.