KANAKA @ KANAKAMBAL AND ORS Vs. ETHURAJU AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners/Plaintiffs have projected the civil revision petition before this Court as against the order dated 09.04.2008 in I.A. No. 269 of 2007 in O.S. No. 70 of 2006 passed by the Principal sub Judge, Tindivanam in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. The trial Court while passing orders in the I.A. has inter alia opined that the proposed parties are necessary parties to the case and any decision to be rendered in the suit will bind the first defendant and this in turn will bind the respondents 2 to 6 therein and resultantly, dismissed the application.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners urges before this Court that the order of the trial court in dismissing the I.A. is not correct in the eye of law and that the trial court has erred in coming to the conclusion that the impleading application has been filed with a view to protract the proceedings, overlooking the fact that the application was filed within 4 months for the purported sale and further in a declaratory suit, all parties claiming title to the property are proper and necessary parties and this aspect of the matter has been appreciated by the trial court in proper perspective and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition in furtherance of the substantial cause of justice.

(3.) The pith and substance of the contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners/Plaintiffs is that the proposed respondents 2 to 6 having purchased the suit property from the first defendant are necessary and proper parties since they claim right in presenti and therefore, the trial court ought to have allowed the I.A. in the interest of justice to avoid plurality of proceedings.