S SABARI KARTHIKEYAN Vs. A R PADMANABHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petitioner/ proposed party has projected this civil revision petition as against the order dated 25.03.2008 made in I.A. No. 574 of 2007 in O.S.No.75/2006 passed by the file of Additional District-cum-Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No. III), Coimbatore, in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner/ proposed party under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C, praying to implead the revision petitioner as fourth defendant in the Suit.

(2.) THE trial court while passing orders in I.A. No. 574/2007 has inter-alia observed that by not adding the civil revision petitioner/ third party as party to the pending suit proceedings, no harm will be caused to the revision petitioner and on the other hand, if the revision petitioner/ third party is added as a party then the suit proceedings will get delayed and further that the revision petitioner/ third party is not a party to the suit proceedings and the Judgment and decree to be passed in that case will not bind him in any manner and resultantly dismissed the application.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the revision petitioner/ third party is a necessary party and a proper party to the suit proceedings between the plaintiffs and the defendants and that the revision petitioner/ third party is the grandson of elder brother Thiru K.V. Shanmugham and that the revision petitioner, as third party, claims his right through Will and further that he is in possession of the said properties. To lend support to his contention, he relies on the decision Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors., (1992) 2 SCC p.524), wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has inter-alia held that, "the Court has judicial discretion for addition of a necessary party and the same has to be exercised having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in exercise of this discretion, the court can direct a plaintiff, though dominus litis, to implead a person as a necessary party defendant, etc." He also draws the attention of this court to the decision S. Krishnaveni v. D. Rajammal and 5 Ors., (2001(4) CTC p.717), wherein this court has held that, "Landlord is necessary and proper party to suit by tenant in respect of land and legal representative of such landlord after death of landlord are also necessary and proper parties, etc."