logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 2063 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : CRP No. 5556 of 2025 & CMP. No. 27868 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI
Parties : L.V. Harikrishnan & Others Versus V. Yuvaraj & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: S. Sridevi, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 to R7, M/s. G. Prakash I. Jenkins Willian, Advocate, R10, M/s. C. Sathish, Learned Govt. Advocate, R8, Died, R12, Archana, R13, Aruna, R14, Pattapiraman, R15, Loganathan, R16, Sujatha, R17, Baby, R18, Sugana, R19, Amsaveni, R20, Kasthuri, R21, Loganathan, R22, Latha, R23, Gowri, R24, Sivakumar, R25, Vijayalakswhmi, R8, Susila, R9, Jayanthi, Advocates.
Date of Judgment : 11-03-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 227 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 14.10.2025 in IA.No.10 of 2025 in OS.No.45 of 2019 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruvallur.)

1. The petitioners have filed this Civil Revision petition prays to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 14.10.2025 in I.A.No.10 of 2025 in OS.No.45 of 2019 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruvallur.

2. Before the trial court, the petitioners filed an application to implead certain persons belonging to the other branches of the family, stating that they are necessary parties to the suit property. It is stated that their details were mentioned in the written statement, but they were omitted to be included as parties, and therefore the present application was filed. On hearing both sides, the other defendants raised objections and the trial court dismissed the petition holding that it was highly belated.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the said parties are necessary for proper adjudication of the issues in the suit. Due to inadvertence, they were omitted earlier, and the defendants themselves have raised the plea of non-joinder of necessary parties.

4. Considering the submissions made on both sides, it is seen that the suit is one for partition, and all necessary parties must be impleaded in order to adjudicate the issues effectively. Admittedly, the defendants themselves have contended that the proposed parties belong to another branch of the family and are necessary parties to the proceedings. Though there is delay, they are necessary parties and the trial court failed to take note of the said fact. Therefore, the findings of the trial Judge passed in I.A.No.10 of 2025 in OS.No.45 of 2019, dated 14.10.2025, on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruvallur. are set aside.

5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

6. However, both parties are directed to co-operate for early disposal of the trial. The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
 
  CDJLawJournal