(Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, 1950, praying to set aside the Fair and Decreetal Order dated July 11, 2017 passed in I.A.No.320 of 2015 in O.S.No.128 of 2008 on the file of I Additional District Munsif, Vridhachalam.)

1. Feeling aggrieved by the Dismissal Order dated July 11, 2017, passed in a petition filed under Order XXIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of 'the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ('CPC' for short) in I.A.No.320 of 2015 in O.S.No.128 of 2008 on the file of 'the I Additional District Munsif, Vridhachalam' [hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court'], the Petitioner/Plaintiff therein has preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

2. The Revision Petitioner herein is the Plaintiff and the Respondents herein are the Defendants in the Original Suit in O.S.No.128 of 2008. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

3. The Plaintiff filed the aforesaid Suit against the defendants seeking declaration and injunction and if in case, the defendants encroach the suit property during the pendency of Suit, then the reliefs of delivery of possession and mesne profits as well.

4. An extent of 0.31.5 hectare in Survey No.88/3A1B and an extent of 0.15.0 hectare in Survey No.88/3A1C of Sirunisalur Village, Vridhachalam Taluk is the suit property.

5. According to the plaintiff, an extent of 42 Cents in the suit property originally belonged to one Mulaviyammal, wife of Manjan and her son Kaliyappan. The aforesaid owners executed a Sale Deed in favour of the 1st Defendant, namely Poovayee on June 03, 1978, who is the mother of the 2nd defendant herein.

5.1. The remaining properties in Survey No.88/3A were owned by Muthusamy, Marimuthu, Raghavan, Chinnasamy and Manjamuthu, who are brothers. In an oral partition which occurred 20 years prior to the Suit, 1 Acre 21 Cents was allotted to Muthusamy and the remaining entire portion was allotted to Manjamuthu. Muthusamy executed a Sale Deed in favour of one Chinnasamy's wife, namely Vishalakshi to an extent of 84 Cents in Survey No.88/3A. Thereafter, Muthusamy died. Muthusamy's wife - Manjayee executed a Sale Deed in favour of Chinnasamy on May 30, 1995 in respect of the remaining property, i.e., 37 Cents. Chinnasamy's wife Vishalakshi passed away 15 years prior to the Suit, leaving behind Chinnasamy as her legal heir. As detailed above, Chinnasamy owned and came into possession and enjoyment of the entire extent of 1 Acre 21 Cents in the suit property which was allotted to Muthusamy in the said oral partition.

                     5.2. On November 24, 2004, Chinnasamy executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of one Ramasamy. The Plaintiff purchased the suit property from the Power Agent - Ramasamy on March 29, 2007. When the Sale Deed was executed on March 29, 2007 by the Power Agent in favour of the Plaintiff, Chinnasamy was not alive. The factum of death of Chinnasamy was not known to the Plaintiff. To rectify the defect of the title, the Plaintiff obtained a Sale Deed from the legal heirs of Chinnasamy on November 05, 2014, during the pendency of the Suit.

                     5.3. Further the total extent of Survey No.88/3 is 2 Acre 52 Cents, out of which, an extent of 1 Acre belonged to Arunthamaraiammal, 70 Cents belonged to Muthuvel, who sold the property to one Kasinathan and the remaining extent of 1 Acre 82 Cents belonged to Raman's sons, namely, Manjan, Mari and Muthusamy. Mari sold the property to Muthusamy's wife - Manjayee. Muthusamy sold the property to Arunthamaraiammal. Raman's son sold the property measuring an extent of 42 Cents to the 1st Defendant on June 03, 1978. The 1st Defendant sold the property to Marimuthu on August 25, 1978. The said factum was omitted to be stated in the plaint. Hence, the plaint has some formal defect. If the Plaintiff proceeded with the case as such, the Plaintiff may fail. Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks permission to withdraw the Suit and a leave to file a fresh Suit on the same subject matter.

6. The Defendants filed a counter stating that the Plaintiff's vendor filed a Suit in O.S. No.82 of 2005 on February 22, 2005 and the same was dismissed on August 06, 2007. Hence, the alleged Sale Deed dated March 29, 2007 said to have been obtained by the Plaintiff through the Power Agent - Chinnasamy, is invalid. Hence, the Plaintiff has not made out a case. Accordingly, they prayed the Trial Court to dismiss the petition.

7. The Trial Court after hearing both sides, held that if the petition is allowed, it would cause prejudice to the defendants. The Plaintiff filed the petition only to fill up lacuna. Moreover, the vendor of Chinnasamy filed O.S.No.82 of 2005 and the same was dismissed as not pressed. Hence, the petition is not maintainable without obtaining leave in O.S.No.82 of 2005. Hence, the alleged Sale Deed obtained by the Plaintiff during the pendency of the Suit will not give rise to a new cause of action. Accordingly, the Trial Court dismissed the petition.

8. Ms.Nilapher appearing on behalf of Ms.R.Meenal, Counsel on record for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the Plaintiff failed to trace the title correctly in the plaint. She further submitted that the Plaintiff purchased the property on March 29, 2007 from the Power Agent of Chinnasamy. But, Chinnasamy passed away on the date of execution of the Sale Deed. Hence, the Sale Deed dated March 29, 2007 is technically invalid. To avoid technical defects and to set right the title, the Plaintiff obtained a fresh Sale Deed on November 05, 2014 from the legal heirs of Chinnasamy, when the factum of his death brought to Plaintiff's notice. These facts are to be brought on record by way of an amendment. As stated supra, some more persons who are interested in the suit property are to be added as parties under Order I Rule 10 (2) of CPC. When such an amendment is carried out and when more parties are impleaded, more additional pleadings would be required which would make the difficult to comprehend. It would cause confusion in understanding the dispute. Hence, a fresh Suit is necessary on the subject matter and therefore, the Interlocutory Application to withdraw the Suit in O.S.No.128 of 2008 and to grant leave to file a fresh Suit on the same subject matter. The Trial Court without considering the facts and circumstances, erred in dismissing the Interlocutory Application. Accordingly, she prayed to allow this Civil Revision Petition, set aside the Order passed by the Trial Court and consequently allow the Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.320 of 2015. She would rely on the following decisions in support of her contentions:- (i) Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.Rajandran -vs- Annasamy Pandian (Dead) through LR's reported in (2017) 5 SCC 63; (ii) Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardev Singh -vs- Gurmail Singh (Dead) by LR's reported in (2007) 2 SCC 404; (iii) Judgment of this Court in Rajamanickam -vs- P.Dhandapani reported in 2013-5-L.W.47.

9. Despite service of notice, the Respondents did not appear to contest the case.

10. This Court has heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the pleadings and affidavit filed in support of the petition.

11. In the Original Suit in O.S.No.128 of 2008, the Trial commenced in the year 2014. The Suit was dismissed for default and subsequently, the Suit was restored on April 10, 2015. When the case was posted for cross examination of P.W.1, the Plaintiff filed a petition on June 08, 2015 for withdrawing the Suit and seeking leave of the Trial Court to file a fresh Suit on the same subject matter.

12. The reason assigned by the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff was not aware of the factum of death of Chinnasamy when the Power Agent executed a Sale Deed in favour of him. To set right the title, the Plaintiff obtained a Sale Deed dated November 5, 2014 from the legal heir of Chinnasamy during the pendency of the Suit. Further, it is also stated that some more persons have to be added as necessary parties. This Court is satisfied with the reason assigned in the affidavit. In other words, the plaintiff has made out a case under Order XXIII Rule 1 (a) of CPC.

13. Considering the nature of the prayer sought for by the Plaintiff, this Court is inclined to allow the Civil Revision Petition. However, considering the age of the Suit, considering the loss of human resource and expenses incurred by the Defendants, this Court is inclined to allow the Civil Revision Petition subject to payment of cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) to the Defendants 1 to 9.

14. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed subject to payment of total cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) to the Defendants 1 to 9 (in case of a deceased defendant, their share shall be equally shared among their legal heirs / legal representatives on record) on or before February 25, 2026. In case, the defendants or their legal heirs / legal representatives refuse to receive the cost amount, the Revision Petitioner shall deposit the same before the Trial Court on or before February 25, 2026. Either ways, the Revision Petitioner shall file an appropriate acknowledgment or receipt of the same before this Court as compliance on or before February 27, 2026 (Friday), failing which, this Civil Revision Petition shall stand dismissed automatically without any further reference to this Court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

For reporting compliance, call on March 02, 2026.