THANGAVEL Vs. KULATHUMETTU AYYANAR KOIL THROUGH ITS HEREDITARY TRUSTEE, RAMALINGAM S/O THANGAVEL, COMMISSIONER, THANJAVUR MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed in I.A. No. 1024 of 2006 in O.S. No. 322 of 2006, wherein the Court below has rejected the application filed for impleading the petitioner in the suit.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is as follows: The first respondent herein filed a suit earlier in O.S. No. 211 of 2005 against the third parties. Challenging the same an appeal was filed and the same was allowed. The petitioner herein has also filed a suit in O.S. No. 305 of 2006 against the first respondent herein seeking the relief of permanent injunction before the District Munsif Court, Thanjavur. Thereafter the respondents herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 322 of 2006 against he respondents herein seeking the relief of mandatory injunction directing the second respondent herein to issue the license to fishing in the tanks described in item 8, 10 and 11 of the schedule mentioned in the suit properties belonging to the temple. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the he is the licensee to do fishing from the temple and the judgment passed by the court in O.S. No. 322 of 2006 would substantially affect his rights, more so when he has already filed a suit against the first respondent herein.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's rights would be very much affected by the ultimate outcome of the proceedings. According to the learned Counsel that in view of the pendency of the earlier suit between the petitioner and the first respondent, the petitioner will have to be impleaded and the petitioner is a necessary and proper party for proper adjudication of the case.