KALIYAPERUMAL Vs. PUDUPETTAI CHOKKANATHASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Prayer in both the C.R.Ps.: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and final order dated 21.09.2005 passed in I.A.No.1233 of 2005 in I.A.No.710 of 2003 in O.S.No.471 of 1992 and I.A.No.621 of 2005 in O.S.No.471 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsiff, Panruti.) The defendants are the petitioners in both the revisions, which are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.471 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif, Panrutti for possession of the suit property and also for recovery of damages.

(2.) IT is the case of the plaintiffs that the first plaintiff Pudupettai Chokanatha Swami Annathana Sathiram by its power agent N.Subramania Chettiar who subsequently died, is the owner and the defendant's father was the tenant and after his death, defendants 1 and 2 have continued under a oral lease. Since then there was arrears of rent, notice was issued for the purpose of recovery of possession and the suit for possession was filed.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel, even if it is for the purpose of carrying out the amendment consequent to the impleading order, notice to the other side is a minimum requirement of concept of natural justice, which cannot be dispensed with by the learned judge. Therefore, on the face of it, the order passed by the learned Judge in allowing the amendment on 23.06.2003 is illegal. He would also submit that while the application was only for the purpose of impleading the second plaintiff as a party and that was the only prayer in the impleading petition in I.A.No.388 of 2003, in the amendment, the second plaintiff has included a paragraph in the plaint stating as if, he was duly selected as a trustee of Annathana Chatiram, about which certainly the petitioners/defendants are entitled for notice, since they have got a right to file their counter affidavit and even if such paragraph has been included, which was not the purpose of the original impleading petition, the defendants are entitled to file additional written statement and additional issue has to be framed and therefore, according to the learned counsel, the entire process has been done in a hasty manner, which is opposed to the basic principles of law.