NACHAMMAL Vs. LAVANGAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order rejecting the Application filed under Order 1, rule 10 (2) C. P. C. , to implead the petitioner/ third party as a party in the preliminary decree proceedings is challenged in this Revision petition.

(2.) THE suit has been filed by the plaintiff/ respondent for partition on 23/3/1973. One of the items, viz. , Item No. 19 has been sold to the petitioner/third party on 30/6/1973 by the second defendant. However, the second defendant did not make any mention about the same in the written statement filed by him before the Trial Court. In the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent, the petitioner/third party is not made a party, even though the property in question was purchased by her from the second defendant on 30/6/1973. Ultimately, the suit was decreed and preliminary decree came to be passed on 26/7/1982. Now the final decree proceedings are pending. At this stage, an Application has been filed by the petitioner/third party in I. A. No. 881 of 2005 seeking for a direction to implead herself as a party in the preliminary decree proceedings, as her interest in respect of Item No. 19 is affected. The Trial Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the Application. Hence, this revision.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/third party, while assailing the order passed in the said Application, would refer to Section 146, Order 21, Rule 16 and Order 22, Rule 10 of CPC, and submit that the proceedings can be continued as against the petitioner/third party, who is a necessary party, as her interest is affected by virtue of the preliminary decree in respect of the property in item No. 19, which is in her possession. He also relied on the decisions of the Supreme court in Amit Kumar Shaw v. Farida khatoon, and Raj Kumar v. Sardari Lal, to substantiate the case of the petitioner/third party.