Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


C.Periyaswamy v. K.Saraswathy - C.R.P.(PD)NO.1565 OF 2003 [2003] RD-TN 635 (1 August 2003)


DATED: 01/08/2003



C.R.P.(PD)NO.1565 OF 2003


C.M.P.NO.11329 OF 2003

1. C.Periyaswamy

2. S. Sankar .. Petitioners -Vs-

1. K.Saraswathy

2. Karur Municipality

rep. by its Commissioner

Azad Road

Karur .. Respondents This civil revision petition is preferred under Section 115 of C.P. C. against the order and decreetal order made in IA No.97 of 2003 in OS No.915 of 1998 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Karur dated 24.03.2003.

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Baskar

For Respondents : Mr.K.Govindarajan

of M/s. Sarbhauman Associates

for R1 caveator


What is challenged herein is an order of the learned Principal District Munsif, Karur dismissing an application filed by the third parties to implead them as party to the suit.

2. It was a suit filed by the first respondent seeking for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction alleging that she got 5 feet width in the suit property as mentioned in the description of property and the same was exclusively belonged to the plaintiff. The Karur Municipality, who was originally added as defendant in the suit, was making encroachment over the same for laying road, which has got to be immediately injuncted and further mandatory injunction should be granted against the Municipality for removal of the same. The Municipality has filed a written statement and issues have also been framed. The plaintiff's side evidence was over. At this juncture, the instant application has been filed by the revision petitioners herein to add them as defendants in the suit.

3. No case was made out for considering the allegations made in the affidavit. It was a suit filed by the plaintiff against the Municipality alleging that the plaintiff was aggrieved over the encroachment made by the Municipality on her property. Hence, there was a cause of action in the suit. Now, the proposed party/revision petitioners herein have filed the instant application, where no cause of action arose, and apart from that it would be very clear that the application has been filed only to drag on the proceedings and that too the same was filed after the plaintiff's side evidence was over. Apart from that, it is not the case where if not the petitioners herein are added as party, it cannot said that the issues before the trial court cannot be adjudicated upon effectively. It is a well settled proposition of law that a party has to be impleaded in a pending matter, if whose presence is necessary for the effective adjudication of the subject matter before the Court. In the instant case, it cannot be said so at any stretch of imagination. Hence, the lower court was perfectly correct in rejecting the request of the petitioners herein to implead them as a party to the suit. This Court is unable to see any infirmity or illegality in the order of the lower court. Hence, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP is also dismissed.

Index : Yes

Internet : Yes



The Principal District Munsif,



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.