P KUPPUSAMY Vs. T R THANGAVELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petitioner/proposed party has filed the present civil revision petition aggrieved against the order dated 12.02.2008 in I.A.No.1058 of 2007 in O.S.No.367 of 2004 passed by the District Munsif, Tiruchengodu in dismissing the impleading application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) THE revision petitioner/proposed party has filed I.A.No.1058 of 2007 before the trial Court inter alia stating that during the pendency of the suit O.S.No.367 of 2004, the plaintiffs have sold the suit property for valid consideration suppressing the pendency of the suit during the life time of the first plaintiff through a registered sale deed dated 16.07.1997 and that after purchase he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and during the life time of first plaintiff the revision petitioner has not taken steps to implead himself as a party to the suit, since the plaintiffs have effectively prosecuted the suit and that after the intestate the death of the first plaintiff Chellamuthu on 30.04.2006 his legal heirs do not evince any interest to safeguard his interest in the suit property and that the second plaintiff is also not showing keen interest in the suit and hence, to protect his interest in the suit property permission may be accorded to him to implead himself as one of the plaintiffs along with the existing plaintiff in the above suit so as to protect his interest in the suit property.

(3.) IT is to be noted that whether a person is a necessary or a proper party, a specific finding has to be given by the trial Court and rendering such a finding is a condition precedent to the exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code. IT is true that the aim of the Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code is to prevent plurality of actions though it may incidentally have that effect. Admittedly, the person to be joined must be one whose presence is necessary as a party, it is, therefore, necessary that an individual must be legally or directly interested in the action, i.e. he can say that the litigation may lead to a result which will affect him legally i.e. by curtailing his accrued legal rights if any.