P.PANDI Vs. M.SUBBULAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner / plaintiff filed O.S.No.94 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurai Taluk, for the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction, wherein the present respondents have been shown as defendants. The suit was dismissed as against the respondents 2 to 7, since notice was not served on them. Against which, the petitioner filed I.A.No.746 of 2018 in I.A.No.898 of 2017 to set aside the dismissal order and to serve notice on them. The Trial Court has dismissed the same. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has preferred C.M.A.No.45 of 2018 before the Third Additional Sub Court, Madurai along with the stay petition, but the first appellate Court returned the stay petition without numbering the same. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this civil revision petition.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / plaintiff would submit that the petitioner filed the suit for declaration and injunction against the respondents. He filed batta for the respondents 2 to 7, but the same was returned for various reasons. Thereafter, on 15.09.2018, the Trial court dismissed the suit for default as against the respondents 2 to 7 for not paying batta. Therefore, he filed a petition to restore the suit and the same was also dismissed and the suit was posted for trial against the first defendant alone. Hence, he filed civil miscellaneous appeal against the said order along with the stay petition. But, the first appellate Court has returned the same. The respondents 2 to 7 / defendants 2 to 7 are necessary parties to the suit and the first appellate Court has failed to consider the necessity of the stay petition and therefore, seeks to direct the first appellate Court to number the stay petition.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.