R A KARUNAMBAL Vs. LOGANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.S.Thangavel and Mr.S.Subramanian , learned counsel for the Respondents.

(2.) The procedure is meant to facilitate the ends of justice and not to defeat the same. The present case is a classic example of a procedural battle that has driven the Petitioners to file the present Revision Petition. In O.S.No.193 of 2008 was filed before the Subordinate Court Judge, Dharapuram, by the present Revision Petitioners i.e., R.A.Karunambal and Kavinkumar and also by Latha Rani against Arumugam, who is the husband of R.A.Karunambal and the father of Kavinkumar and Latha Rani. Loganathan who was the power agent of Arumugam was impleaded as the 2nd Defendant and Duraisamy, the subsequent purchaser of one portion of the suit property was impleaded as the 3rd Defendant in the Plaint filed on 24.11.2008. The prayer in the Plaint for partition and maintenance since the Plaintiffs have alleged that the 1st Defendant in the suit fell in bad company and became addicted to alcohol and accordingly has driven them away from the matrimonial home.

(3.) When the matter stood thus, the Plaintiffs filed in I.A.No.247 of 2010 in O.S.No.193 of 2008 under Order I Rule 10(2) and Section 151 of C.P.C seeking impleadment of two other respondents viz., V.Santhamani and S.Senthilkumar who happened to be the subsequent purchasers of the property. The said I.A was allowed by the Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram by order dated 06.09.2010. In furtherance of the said order, the original Plaintiffs Nos.1 and 3 filed in I.A.No.699 of 2010 in O.S.No.193 of 2008 before the Subordinate Court seeking for transposition of the 2nd Plaintiff as the 4th Respondent since she was not Co-operating with the Plaintiffs. The said Application was allowed by the Subordinate Court by order dated 09.06.2011.