Rukmani v. Periyasamy

ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order, dated 10.02.2021, passed in I.A.No.244 of 2020 in O.S.No.209 of 2014, by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur.

2.The petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.209 of 2014 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Peraiyur. Initially, the first respondent has filed O.S.No.137 of 2012 against the petitioner herein before the District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam, for declaration and for other reliefs. Subsequently, the said suit has been transferred to the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Peraiyur and renumbered as O.S.No.209 of 2014.

3.The petitioner is the estranged wife of Late.Pandian. It appears that was a marital discord between the petitioner and her late husband Pandian, who died on

14.02.2011 during the pendency of C.M.S.A.No.12 of 2009 before this Court.

4.The facts on record indicate that the petitioner's husband had originally filed H.M.O.P.No.131 of 2001 to dissolve the marriage with the petitioner. The said H.M.O.P. was also allowed by the learned III Additional Sub Judge, Madurai. It appears that the petitioner herein had filed H.M.C.M.A.No.4 of 2007 before the Additional District Court, Madurai, wherein the order passed in H.M.O.P.No.131 of 2001 was set aside and the appeal was allowed on 05.09.2008. Challenging the same, a further appeal was filed by the petitioner's husband in C.M.S.A.No.12 of 2009 before this Court.

5.During the pendency of the above appeal, the petitioner's husband died on

14.02.2011. It appears that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Family Court, the petitioner's late husband has executed a Will in favour of the first respondent, who happens to be his brother, on 21.05.2001. Meanwhile, the petitioner appears to have disposed of the assets in favour of the second respondent on 08.06.2011. Under these circumstances, the first respondent herein filed I.A.No. 244 of 2020 to implead the second respondent herein as second defendant in the suit.

6.By the impugned fair and decreetal order, dated 10.02.2021, the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur, has allowed the application filed by the first respondent herein for impleading the second respondent as second defendant in the suit. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:- ''4.jPHT: chpikapay; eilKiw rl;lk; MHlH 1 &10(2) Court may strike out or add parties.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as Plaintiff or Defendant, be struck out, and that the name, of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as Plaintiff or Defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. ,k;kDtpd; kDjhuH mry; tof;fpy; thjpahthH. mry; tof;fpy; kDjhuuhdtH> vjpHkDjhuH kPJ tpsk;Gif kw;Wk; RthjPd ghpfhuk; Nfhhp tof;F jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;L> Nkw;gb tof;fhdJ vjpHkDjhuH/gpujpthjp jug;G gp.rh.1 FWf;F tprhuizf;fhf epYitapy; ,Ue;jNghJ 08.06.2011k; Njjpapy; vjpHkDjhuH mthpd; mf;fh kfDk;> cj;Njr 2tJ vjpHkDjhuhfpa re;jpuNrfH vd;gtUf;F 1tJ mapl;l nrhj;ij fpiuak; nra;J nfhLj;Js;shH. Nkw;gb Mtzk; gp.rh.M.3 Mf FwpaPL nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. Nkw;gb cj;Njr gpujpthjpahdtH fle;j

08.06.2011k; Njjpa fpiua Mtzj;ij kWf;ftpy;iy. Nkw;gb

08.06.2011k; Njjpa fpiua MtzkhdJ ey;y vz;zj;jpy; cUthf;fg;gl;ljh? ,y;iyah? vd;gjid ,j;jUzj;jpy; tpthjpf;f Ntz;bajpy;iy. tof;fpd; 1tJ mapl;l nrhj;jhdJ ,t;tof;F jhf;fy; nra;tjw;F Kd;dNu gpujpthjpahdtH 1tJ cj;Njr gpujpthjpf;F fpiuak; nra;J nfhLj;Js;sij xg;Gf;nfhs;fpwhH. jug;gpdHfSf;fpilNa cs;s G+ry;fis KOikahf jPHkhdpg;gjw;Fk;> mry; tof;fpy; voTs;s tpdhf;fs; midj;jpw;Fk; KbT fhzNtz;Lk; vd;gjw;fhfTk;> Nkw;gb cj;Njr gpujpthjpia mry; tof;fpy; jug;gpduhf NrHf;f Ntz;baJ mtrpakhFk;. kDjhuH kDtpy; $wpAs;s fhuzq;fs; Vw;Wf;nfhs;sf; $baitahfTk;> ek;gj;jFe;jjhfTk; cs;sJ. kDjhuH mtuJ tof;fpid ep&gzk; nra;tjw;F

xU

tha;g;G

mspf;f

Ntz;baJ mtrpakhfpwJ. ,k;kDtpid mDkjpg;gjhy; vjpHkDjhuUf;F vt;tpj ,og;Gk; Vw;gl Nghtjpy;iy. ,k;kDthdJ fhyjhkjhf jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ vd;fpd;w fhuzj;jpw;fhf kl;LNk js;Sgb nra;a

,ayhJ.

Mifahy;

,k;kDtpid

vjpHkDjhuH nryTj;njhifAld; mDkjpf;fyhk; vd KbT nra;ag;gLfpwJ. Kbthf> ,k;kDtpd; kDjhuH. vjpHkDjhuUf;F kD nryTj;njhifahf &.500j;ij tUfpd;w 11.02.2021 md;Wf;Fs; nrYj;j Ntz;LnkdTk;> jtWk;gl;rj;jpy; ,k;kDthdJ jhkhf js;Sgb MfptpLk; vd cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ. miof;f tha;jh : 12.02.2021.''

7.The issue that arises for consideration in the present Civil Revision Petition is, whether the Trial Court has erred in allowing the application filed by the first respondent for impleading the second respondent as second defendant in the suit.

8.The fact remains that a Will has been executed in favour of the first respondent by Late.Pandian, the husband of the petitioner on 21.05.2001. That apart, the petitioner has reportedly sold the property to the second respondent on

08.06.2011.

9.In my view, the Trial Court has not committed any error while allowing the application for impleading the second respondent as second defendant in the suit. The first respondent may have a case for impleading the second respondent to set aside the sale that was made in favour of the second respondent herein. Therefore, the present Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

10.Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2014, the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur, is directed to proceed with the trial and dispose the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. NCC : Yes/No

25.04.2023 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No smn2 To The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur.

C.SARAVANAN, J. smn2

25.04.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25.04.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and C.M.P.(MD)No.3977 of 2021 Rukmani .. Petitioner Versus 1.Periyasamy 2.Chandrasekaran .. Respondents Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the judgment and decree, dated 10.02.2021, passed in I.A.No.244 of 2020 in O.S.No.209 of 2014, by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sukumar For R1 : Mr.R.Suiryanarayanan For R2 : No Appearance