Ukravel vs Senthilmurugan and Others

V. Ramasubramanian, J.—The petitioner has come up with the above revision, challenging an order passed by the Trial Court refusing to allow the impleadment of third parties to the suit at the instance of the sole defendant. Heard Mr. R. Gururaj, learned counsel for the petitioner.

The respondents 1 and 2 herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 62 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Panruti against the petitioner herein praying for a declaration of title in respect of suit B schedule property and for a consequential decree of permanent injunction.

The petitioner herein, who was the sole defendant, filed a written statement, also seeking a counter claim in the form of a declaration of title to the very same property and for recovery of possession and mesne profits. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for impleadment of third parties on the ground that they are necessary for the determination of the counter claim. That application was dismissed by the Trial Court, forcing the defendant to come up with the above revision.

As rightly pointed out by the Trial Court, the petitioner cannot implead parties, who are necessary for the adjudication of the counter claim. A counter claim at the instance of the defendant is admissible in so far as the plaintiff is concerned. If the third parties are necessary for the determination of the counter claim, the petitioner ought to have filed an independent suit. He cannot implead in the suit of the plaintiffs, parties necessary for the adjudication of his own counter claim. Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, the above MP is also dismissed.