K BALAKRISHNAN Vs. VEERASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Civil Revision Petitioner/ third party has filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 28.07.2008 in I.A.No.115 of 2008 in O.S.No.345 of 2007 passed by the Principal District Judge, Myladuthurai, in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner/third party under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) THE Trial Court while passing orders in I.A.No.115 of 2008 has inter alia opined that the revision petitioner/third party is not a necessary party and that he can seek relief by filing a separate suit for specific performance, resultantly has dismissed the application.

(3.) IT is to be noted that the object of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is to prevent plurality of suits. One must bear in mind that when a Court of law deals with an application for impleadment of a party under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, the Court has to take note of the fact whether the proposed party is a necessary or a proper party for the purpose of effective adjudication of the controversies in the suit. As far as the present case is concerned, revision petitioner/third party claims right by means of a registered agreement of sale with the second respondent and if that be the case then the proper and prudent course to him is to file a suit for specific performance before the competent court of law in the manner known to law and in that view of the matter, this Court comes to the inevitable conclusion that the civil revision petitioner/ third party is not a necessary or a proper party and infact he is only an alien to the proceedings in O.S.No.345 of 2007 filed by the first respondent/plaintiff before the Principal District Munsif, Myladuthurai and in that view of the matter, this civil revision petition is dismissed in the interest of justice.