C. Balasubramanian vs K.S.K. Sundaram

V.M. Velumani, J.—These civil revision petitions have been filed to set aside the fair and decretal order, dated 09.01.2008, made in I.A.Nos.87, 85 and 86 of 2007 in O.S.Nos.322, 317 and 321 of 2000, on the file of Subordinate Court, Karur, respectively.

All the three civil revision petitions arising out of similar issues and therefore, all the three civil revision petitions are disposed of by this common order.

All the three revision petitioners herein are the plaintiff in the suits in O.S.Nos.322, 317 and 321 of 2000, on the file of Subordinate Court, Karur, respectively, whereas the respondents 1 to 5 in all the three revision petitions are the defendants in all the three suits and the respondents 6 to 16 are the proposed defendants.

The petitioners filed suits for recovery of money advanced to the respondents 1 to 5 on mortgage. The second respondent filed written statements stating that there are other mortgagees in respect of the very same property and the suits are bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. In the trial, after completion of evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, D.W.1 was examined in-chief and was cross-examined. At the time of cross- examination of D.W.2, the petitioners have filed applications in I.A.Nos.87, 85 and 86 of 2007 in O.S.Nos.322, 317 and 321 of 2000 respectively, for impleading the respondents 6 to 16 as defendants 6 to 16. The respondents 2 to 4, 6 and 8 to 12 opposed the said applications. The thirteenth respondent submitted that she is a necessary party and application for impleading her as a defendant must be ordered. The respondents 1, 5, 7 and 14 to 16 were remained ex-parte. The learned Judge considered all the materials on record and arguments, dismissed all the three applications holding that the issue involved in the suits is whether the petitioners are entitled for a decree for recovery of money based on the mortgage and the applications filed after completion of evidence on behalf of the petitioners, D.W.1 and when during cross-examination of D.W.2 is belated and not maintainable. Against the said order, the present civil revision petitions are filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that all the mortgagees in respect of the same properties are necessary parties, especially the subsequent mortgagees. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the Judgment reported in Shanmugha Nadar Vs. Sivan Pillai and Others, . In the said judgment, it has been held that puisne mortgagees are necessary parties in the suit filed by prior mortgagees, as they have the right to redeem the prior mortgage. In the same judgment, it was held that puisne mortgagees need not implead prior mortgagee in the suit filed by puisne mortgagee.

Heard Mrs.N.Krishnaveni, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, Mr.V.Perumal, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 and Mr.K.Govindarajan, the learned counsel for the respondents 6, 10 and 12. The respondents 1, 5, 7, 14, 15 and 16 have remained ex-parte before the lower Court. Though the respondents 8, 9 and 13 have been served and their names have been printed in the cause list, they have not chosen to enter their appearance.

In the written statement and the affidavit filed in support of the applications for impleading and in the counter affidavit, the details of the charge and mortgages in respect of the respondents 6 to 12 and 14 to 16, are not mentioned. Only the thirteenth respondent has stated that her mortgage, is dated 01.09.1999, which is subsequent to the mortgage in favour of the petitioners. The thirteenth respondent has stated that she has no objection for being impleaded as defendant in the suit.

In view of lack of particulars with regard to mortgagees or charge in favour of the respondents 6 to 12 and 14 to 16 and the applications having been filed at the end of trial, the dismissal of the applications is proper except in respect of the thirteenth respondent.

In the result, these civil revision petitions are allowed in respect of the thirteenth respondent alone and with regard to the respondents 6 to 12 and 14 to 16, these civil revision petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. The suits are of the year 2000. Therefore, the learned Sub Judge, Karur, is directed to dispose of the suits in O.S.Nos.322, 317 and 321 of 2000 on day-to-day basis not later than 30.11.2014.