CHINNASAMY Vs. SIVAKAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Palladam dated 18. 11. 2005 made in I. A. No. 1087 of 2005 in O. S. No. 79 of 2005.

(2.) THE petitioner - third party has filed I. A. No. 1087 of 2005 seeking permission to implead himself as defendant No. 5 in the suit under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC. According to him, he is one of the co-owners of the suit cart-track. His further claim is that the first respondent in collusion with respondents 2 to 5, filed the suit to defeat the rights of the petitioner. It is also his claim that the first respondent has no exclusive right in the suit cart-track, hence filed the said application for impleading him as fifth defendant in the suit.

(3.) THE first respondent-plaintiff filed a counter disputing the claim of the petitioner. As rightly observed by the learned District Munsif, inasmuch as the present suit is only for a bare injunction and the petitioner claiming title over the suit cart-track, there is no need to implead him in the suit filed by the first respondent-plaintiff. Further, if the petitioner is really interested/aggrieved, he is free to file a separate suit to establish his right/title. When such remedy is available, he cannot compel the Court to implead him as the fifth defendant in a suit filed for bare injunction. I agree with the conclusion arrived by the learned District Munsif and there is no valid ground for interference. Accordingly, the revision fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.