SWAMINATHAN Vs. R V RAJENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been directed against the order passed in I.A..No,7909 of 2008 in I.A.No.12753 of 1988 in O.S.No,7745 of 1985 on the file of III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

(2.) MR. R. Shanmugam, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would vehemently contend that the first respondent R.V.Rajendran had already filed an application before the trial Court in I.A.No.141 of 2007 in O.S.No,7745 of 1985 to implead himself in the array of parties in O.S.No,7745 of 1985 in which already a preliminary decree has been passed by the learned III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. That application was dismissed by the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. Against which, C.R.P.(NPD) No,3937 of 2007 was preferred by the petitioner in I.A.No.141 of 2007 in O.S.No,7745 of 1985. After an elaborate discussion, this Court has dismissed the said civil revision petition with an observation that since final decree proceeding in O.S.No,7745 of 1985 was pending before the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the said revision petitioner R.V. Rajendran can move before the trial Court wherein the final decree proceeding was pending in O.S.No,7745 of 1985 by way of an application to get himself impleaded, in lieu of the Judgment in A.S.No,821 of 1988 of this Court. Only on the basis of the said observation, the first respondent herein had filed I.A.No,7909 of 2008 in I.A.No.12753 of 1988 in O.S.No,7745 of 1985 under Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 of CPC. The learned III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, after meticulously going through the order passed in C.R.P.(NPD) NO.3937 of 2007 dated 24.4.2008 of this Court, after coming to a conclusion that the revision petitioner R.V. Rajendran in I.A.No,7909 of 2008 is a necessary and proper party to the adjudication , had allowed the said application, which order is now under challenge in this revision petition.

(3.) AT this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner Mr. R. Shanmugam, relying on a decision reported in G.K. Govindarajulu -v- R. Alamelu (2008(5) CTC 133) would contend that once a preliminary decree has been passed in a partition suit, another preliminary decree cannot be passed in favour of the respondent herein in the final decree proceedings in I.A. No.12753 of 1988 in O.S.No,7745 of 1985. A careful reading of the above said ratio would go to show that the ratio decidendi laid in the above said ratio was that, when a suit has been finally disposed of then there cannot be another final decree passed in the same suit. So the said ratio has no application to the present facts of the case.