This Civil Revision petition has been filed against the order, dated 8.2.2010, made in I.A.No.1876 of 2010, in O.S.No.6618 of 2004, on the file of the I Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit, in O.S.No.6618 of 2004. The said suit had been filed by the petitioners for declaration of title and for recovery of vacant possession of the plaint schedule property, from the defendant, who is the first respondent herein. The petitioners had filed the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.1876 of 2010, to implead one Senthil Kumar, the subsequent purchaser of the suit property, as the second defendant in the suit. By an order, dated 8.2.2010, the interlocutory application filed by the petitioners had been dismissed by the learned I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had stated that the trial Court had dismissed the application filed by the petitioners stating that the second respondent proposed party cannot be said to be a subsequent purchaser, as he had not purchased the property in question, during the pendency of the suit. As he is said to have purchased the suit property, by way of a sale deed, on 14.6.2007, registered as a document in the Office of the Sub Registrar Ashok Nagar, Chennai, on 3.8.2007, as document No.1990/07, when no suit was pending on the file of the I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, as the suit filed by the petitioners had been dismissed for default, on 10.11.2005. the trial Court had also stated that if the petitioners are having a cause of action against the second respondent, it has to be established only by way of filing a fresh suit. It had also been stated that if the second respondent is added as a party to the suit, it would open the floodgate for subsequent purchasers, who may not be proper or necessary parties to the suit, to implead themselves as parties to the suit. Further, the application has been filed by the petitioners only for the purpose of dragging on the proceedings in the suit.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that the filing of the application for impleading the second respondent as a party to the suit proceedings had arisen, since the first respondent had taken a plea, as a defendant in the suit, that the suit should be dismissed for non-joinder of the necessary party. Further, the second respondent had filed the suit, in O.S.No.3081 of 2010, praying for a decree of permanent injunction, stating that he had purchased the suit property, by way of a sale deed, dated 14.6.2007, and that he is in possession of the property in question. Therefore, even if the suit filed by the petitioners, in O.S.No.6618 of 2004, is decreed in their favour, it would not be possible for them to recover possession from the first respondent, in view of the subsequent event alleged to have taken place after the suit had been dismissed for default, on 10.11.2005.
5. Per contra, the learned counsels for the respondents had submitted that the doctrine of lis pendens would be applicable to the transaction, that is said to have taken place by way of a sale deed, dated 14.6.2007, registered, on 3.8.2007 and therefore, there is no necessity to implead the second respondent, as a party to the suit, in O.S.No.6618 of 2004. The Judgment and decree to be passed in the suit, in O.S.No.6618 of 2004, by the trial Court, would also be binding, on the second respondent proposed party.
6. It has also been stated that even though the second respondent might have purchased the suit property, by way of a sale deed, dated 14.6.2007, when the suit, in O.S.No.6618 of 2004, was not pending, due to its dismissal for default, on 10.11.2005, due to its restoration by way of an order of the trial Court, dated 28.7.2008, the alleged transaction would be subject to the doctrine of lis pendens. As such, the application filed by the petitioner for impleading the second respondent, as the second defendant in the suit, in O.S.No.6618 of 2004, is unnecessary and redundant.
7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have not shown sufficient cause or reason to set aside the order of the trial Court, dated 8.2.2010, made in I.A.No.1876 of 2010, in O.S.No.6618 of 2004.
8. It has been stated by the learned counsels for the respondents that the doctrine of lis pendens would be applicable to the transaction, said to have taken place in favour of the second respondent, by way of the registered sale deed, dated 14.6.2007. If so, the claim of the petitioners that the second respondent is a proper and necessary party to the suit, as the second defendant, cannot be sustained. Once it is clear that the sale of the suit property, by way of the alleged sale deed, dated 14.6.2007, would be subject to the judgment and decree to be passed by the trial Court, it cannot be said that the second respondent is a necessary and proper party to the suit proceedings. Of course, it goes without saying that it would be open to the second respondent proposed party to agitate his right, if any, in respect of the suit property, said to have been purchased by him, by way of a registered sale deed, dated 14.6.2007, before the appropriate forum, in the manner known to law. Further, it is noted that the application for impleading the second respondent has been filed by the petitioners, as a party to the proceedings in the suit, is belated in nature. As such, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, with the above observations. No costs.
