SUPERINTENDENT Vs. ERODE MAVATTA DESIYA SUMAIL THOOKKUVOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE third party in O.S.No.106 of 2008 is the revision petitioner before this Court. He is aggrieved by the order of the trial Court dated 16-04-2008, dismissing the application filed by him under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC.

(2.) O.S.No.106 of 2008 has been filed by the first respondents/plaintiff against the revision petitioner/ third party and the second respondent herein for a permanent injunction restraining the second defendant in the suit or its members from interfering with the unloading of Agricultural Products by the members of the plaintiff brought to the Vellakoil Regulated Market Committee. It is not in dispute that the revision petitioner is a party in the suit i.e. the first defendant. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No,444 of 2008 under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 for an order of interim injunction. In I.A.No,444 of 2008, the revision petitioner/first defendant was not made as a party and the second defendant alone was shown as a party and the injunction was also asked against them only. On coming to know about this, the first defendant/revision petitioner filed I.A.No,552 of 2008 under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, to implead him as the second respondent in I.A.No,444 of 2008. This was opposed by the plaintiff by filing a counter wherein it was stated that a similar application was already filed without success and this is a third impleading petition filed by the revision petitioner at the instance of the second defenant and therefore, it is barred by principles of res judicata.

(3.) THE first respondent/plaintiff entered appearance and filed M.P.No,2 of 2008 to vacate the interim order granted by this Court. THE second respondent also entered appearance through their counsel.