U. Rajamani and Umadevi rep. by next friend mother U. Rajamani vs Nagappa Gounder (died) and Others

G. Rajasuria, J.—Animadverting upon the order dated 10.09.2007 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam,

in I.A. No. 406 of 2006 in O.S. No. 16 of 2006, this civil revision petition is focussed.

Heard both sides.

An epitome and summarisation of the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would

run thus:

The revision petitioners herein filed the suit O.S. No. 16 of 2006 seeking declaration and partition as against as many as five defendants on the

ground that the first plaintiff''s husband Rajendran died leaving behind the first plaintiff as his widow and the second plaintiff as his minor child.

During the pendency of the suit, D1 the father-in-law of the first plaintiff died, whereupon I.A. No. 406 of 2006 was filed for impleading the legal

representatives of Nagappa Gounder namely Rajathi (D6) and Sinnakoosu @ Sudha(D7) and the other L.Rs. are already on record.

Shockingly and surprisingly, the alleged deceased Rajendran, husband of the first plaintiff appeared before the lower Court at the hearing of I.A.

No. 406 of 2006, whereupon the trial Court was pleased to dismiss the I.A. with a finding that the said Rajendran should also be added as one of

the L.Rs. of Nagappa Gounder. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the lower Court, this revision has been filed on various

grounds.

The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners placing reliance on the grounds of revision would develop his argument to the effect that simply

because Rajendran who was believed to have died, appeared now, the entire suit will not get frustrated and the plaintiffs are at liberty to get the

plaint amended and also to mould the relief and pray for necessary remedies before the trial Court and de hors that, the application for impleading

the legal representatives filed before the lower Court might be allowed by this Court and that the revision petitioners/plaintiffs could take steps to

implead Rajendran also since he came out of his disappearance.

The learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that the entire suit itself has got frustrated in view of the appearance of Rajendran and

that the trial Court correctly dismissed the I.A. No. 406 of 2006. This is a singularly singular and a peculiar case as shockingly and surprisingly the

so called deceased Rajendran appeared before the lower Court. This Court being the revisional Court, relating to the order passed in I.A., I do

not want to express any opinion relating to the fate of the O.S. No. 16 of 2006 pending before the Court in view of the appearance of Rajendran

and it is for the parties to take necessary steps in that regard and get appropriate orders from the lower Court.

At this stage, it has to be seen as to whether as prayed in I.A. No. 406 of 2006 the deceased Nagappa Gounder''s daughters namely Rajathi

(D6) and Sinnakoosu @ Sudha(D7) should be added as defendants or not. It is at once clear that those persons are undoubtedly daughters of

Nagappa Gounder and along with already existing D2, the wife of deceased Nagappa Gounder, they are all legal heirs of him. Hence I am of the

considered opinion that to that much extent, I.A. No. 406 of 2006 could be allowed.

As has been observed by me supra, it is for the plaintiffs to take necessary steps in the suit consequent upon the appearance of Rajendran,

whereas it is for the contesting defendants to pray for necessary orders relating to maintainability of the suit in view of the appearance of

Rajendran.

Accordingly, this civil revision petition is ordered. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.