Madras High Court
S.Ramesh Kumar vs M.L.Sivan on 14 December, 2016
Author: M.V.Muralidaran
Bench: M.V.Muralidaran
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 14.06.2018
DELIVERED ON : 16.11.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN
C.R.P.(MD)(PD) No.470 of 2018
and
CMP(MD)No.2097 of 2018
S.Ramesh Kumar .. Petitioner
vs
1.M.L.Sivan
Proprietor,
Sivam Earth Movers,
TPM Compound, Main Road,
Aralvaimozhi & Post,
Aralvaimozhi Village, Thovalai Taluk,
Kanyakumari District.
2.S.Anacha Perumal .. Respondents
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, against the Fair and Decreetal order dated 14.12.2016 passed in
I.A.No.336 of 2012 in O.S.No.162 of 2008 on the file of the learned
District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar
For Respondents : No Appearance
ORDER
The Revision Petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition challenging an Order dated 14.12.2016 of the Learned District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil made in I.A.No.336 of 2012 in O.S.No.162 of 2008.
2.The Revision Petitioner who is not a party in the above suit in O.S.No.162 of 2008 had filed the above application to implead him as 2nd defendant in the suit in O.S.No.162 of 2008 vide I.A.No.335 of 2012 under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of CPC.
3.The record reveals that the suit is found to be filed by the 1st respondent herein as plaintiff against the 2nd respondent herein/defendant for recovery of money. In the suit proceeding, the revision petitioner who was not arrayed as defendant has filed an application to implead himself as 2nd defendant claiming that a property purchased by him for a valid consideration remain attached in http://www.judis.nic.in 3 the above suit by an Order of attachment before Judgment.
4.Thus revision petitioner claiming him to be the legitimate owner of the property attached in the suit seeking to raise the attachment has filed the above application to implead himself as the 2nd defendant in the suit. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court holding that the revision petitioner’s application is intended to play fraud upon Court by projecting a new story by executing fraudulent sale deed in favor of revision petitioner subsequent to the above suit proceedings.
5.Aggrieved over the rejection of his claim to implead as the second defendant, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the above Order.
6.I heard Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the entire materials available on record. No representation on behalf of the respondents.
7.Though it is the contention of the revision petitioner that he is a bonafide purchaser of the property, it is seen that the purchase http://www.judis.nic.in 4 was made by him subsequent to the Order of Attachment despite its reflection in Encumbrance Certificate disclosing that the property is under Attachment.
8.It is further seen that the 1st respondent / plaintiff has also issued a wide paper notice warning the general public alarming the attachment made by the Court. Thus the intention is solely to create encumbrance over the property and introduce a new case.
9.The above circumstances undoubtedly demonstrate that the petitioner herein has entered into the above transaction despite due knowledge of the order of attachment. No doubt that an attachment is not a bar for registration of a document, however at the same it should be justifiable on questioning.
10.In the case on hand absolutely the alleged sale projected by the revision petitioner stands fishy. Further in this regard it is also equally important to state that it is the stand of the 1 st respondent / plaintiff that the 2nd respondent has executed the above deed in apparent collusion with the revision petitioner, so as to overcome the attachment of Court and anticipated to raise attachment. http://www.judis.nic.in 5
11.It is needless to say that once a party purchased a property involved in a suit, certainly he will be bound by the Suit Decree. No doubt, Doctrine of Lispendens under section 52 of Transfer of property Act will come to play and the subsequent purchaser will be bound by his vendor’s title and right as to be decided in the suit.
12.Therefore in my considered opinion, the impleading petitioner is not a necessary party to the above suit. However he will stand governed by the decree passed in the above suit.
13.Therefore, I do not find any infirmity or illegality over the impugned order to interfere with. Accordingly this civil revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
14.In the result:
(a) this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed by confirming the order passed in I.A.No.336 of 2012 in O.S.No. 162 of 2008 dated 14.12.2016, on the file of the learned District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil;
(b) the learned District Judge, Kanyakumari District http://www.judis.nic.in 6 at Nagercoil, is directed to take up the suit on day to day basis without giving any adjournments and dispose the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, since the suit is for the year 2008. Both the parties are directed to give their fullest co-operation for early disposal of the suit. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
16.11.2018
vsv
Index : Yes
To
The District Judge,
Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.
http://www.judis.nic.in
7
M.V.MURALIDARAN, J.
vsv
Pre-delivery order made in
C.R.P.(MD)(PD) No.470 of 2018
and
CMP(MD)No.2097 of 2018
16.11.2018
http://www.judis.nic.in