P KALAMANI Vs. MOHANDOSS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 4.10.2005 passed in I.A.No.1476 of 2005 in O.S.No,235 of 2003 by the III Additional District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi(II Additional District Munsif Judge, III Additional District Judge, Kallakurichi (Full additional incharge). Inveighing the order dated 4.10.2005 passed in I.A.No.1476 of 2005 in O.S.No,235 of 2003 by the III Additional District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi(II Additional District Munsif Judge, III Additional District Judge, Kallakurichi (Full additional incharge), this civil revision petition is focussed.

(2.) A summation and summarisation of facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus:- The revision petitioner, as plaintiff, filed the suit O.S.No,235 of 2003 seeking the following relief:

(3.) I could see considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that in an injunction suit and that too, when already the original defendant-D2 (the son of deceased D1) is present before the Court and that the plaintiff wanted to add the existing children of deceased Venkatesa Chettiar as LRs of Venkatesa Chettiar, there could have been no hesitation for the Court to allow such an application. The Court cannot observe or hold, mandate or order that the grand children of Venkatesa Chettiar, being class-I heirs of Venkatesa Chettiar, should also be added. Impleadment of the necessary parties will differ from case to case. Blindly in all cases, the Court should not usher in the concept of impleading all legal representatives of deceased in entirety and give direction to the parties to implead all the LRs of the deceased oblivious of the necessity and circumstances. Furthermore, it is not a partition suit as correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The judgement that would be rendered would be a judgement in personam and not a judgement in rem. Hence, in these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the lower Court should be interfered with, accordingly it is set aside and consequently the I.A.No.1476 of 2005 shall stand allowed.