BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.2357 of 2010
M.P(MD)Nos.1 of 2010 and 1 of 2011
Tuticorin - Nazareth Diocese,
Church of South India,
Caldwell Higher Secondary
Tuticorin - 628 001. ... Petitioner/3rd Respondent/ Proposed party defendant
1.Palraj ... 1st Respondent/Petitioner/ Plaintiff
3.Soundararaj ... Respondents 2 and 3/ Respondent 1 and 2/
Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 29.09.2010 passed in I.A.No.297 of 2010 in O.S.No.10 of 2010, by the learned Additional District Munsif, Tiruchendur.
!For Petitioner ... Mr.S.Subbiah
^For Respondent ... Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai for R.1 Mr.M.P.Senthil for R.2 and R.3
* * * * *
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 29.09.2010 passed in I.A.No.297 of 2010 in O.S.No.10 of 2010, by the learned Additional District Munsif, Tiruchendur.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would portray and parody the facts which could tersely and briefly be set out thus: (i) The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.10 of 2010 seeking permanent injunction and while so, he obtained an interim injunction as against the defendants therein not to make any construction. However, subsequently, the same plaintiff filed I.A.No.297 of 2010 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading the revision petitioner. Whereupon the revision petitioner entered appearance and contested the matter. However, the lower Court passed orders as though the existing defendants happened to be the agents of the revision petitioner.
(ii) The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that simply because the defendants happened to be the members of the congregation as that of the plaintiff himself, there is no question of labelling or describing, projecting or portraying the existing defendants as the agents of the proposed party namely the revision petitioner, which actually constructed the compound wall enclosing its property; however, in the pending suit, straightaway, the revision petitioner cannot be added as a party, because the suit is only for bare injunction, but as on the date of filing of the application for impleading the propose party, already the proposed party had raised the construction.
4. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff would try to buttress and fortify the alleged flawlessness in the order of the lower Court.
5. The point for consideration is as to whether in the pending suit filed by the first respondent/plaintiff, the revision petitioner could be legally added as one of the defendants therein?
6. The bedrock of the reasoning given by the lower Court was that the original defendants are none but the agents of the revision petitioner Diocese, but absolutely there is no smidgeon or miniscule extent of evidence in that regard.
7. Over and above that, the revision petitioner Diocese already constructed the compound wall and in such a case, the first respondent/plaintiff, if at all is having any remedy as against the revision petitioner Diocese, has to file a suit for mandatory injunction and also for other reliefs available under the law. In the absence of any evidence, the lower Court was not justified in simply adding the revision petitioner Diocese as one of the defendants therein. The point is answered accordingly.
8. On balance, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, by setting aside the order dated 29.09.2010 passed in I.A.No.297 of 2010 in O.S.No.10 of 2010, by the learned Additional District Munsif, Tiruchendur. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.