Madras High Court Rejects Implead Petition as Main Appeal Already Disposed — Petitioner Permitted to Withdraw with Liberty to File Fresh Appeal or Other Remedy. Implead petition filed after disposal of main writ appeal held not maintainable.

High Court: Madras High Court
  • 12
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition at the SR (scrutiny) stage seeking to implead himself as the 6th respondent in a writ appeal. However, the main writ appeal had already been disposed of on 05.03.2024. The Registry returned the papers to the counsel, but the counsel insisted on numbering the petition, leading to the matter being placed before the court under the caption 'For Maintainability'. During hearing, the counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file an appeal or such other remedy. The court granted permission and rejected the petition, keeping open the liberty sought. The court did not delve into the merits of the impleadment as the main appeal was already disposed of.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Implead Petition - Maintainability - Petition to implead as respondent in a writ appeal filed after the main appeal had been disposed of - Held that such petition is not maintainable as the appeal no longer exists - Petitioner permitted to withdraw with liberty to file a fresh appeal or other remedy (Paras 1-3).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether a petition to implead as a party in a writ appeal can be entertained after the main appeal has been disposed of.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Civil Miscellaneous Petition in SR stage stands rejected, with permission granted to withdraw and liberty kept open to file an appeal or such other remedy.

Law Points

  • Maintainability of implead petition after disposal of main appeal
  • Withdrawal of petition with liberty
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (MAD) (01) 74

CMP SR No. 73579 of 2024

2026-01-22

S. M. Subramaniam, D. Bharatha Chakravarthy

Mrs.Karthikaa Ashok

C.M.Sivababu

Bangalore T.A.Vaiyapuri Chettiar, Ammani Amman Madam, Rep. by its Trustee Amsammal, The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, The Assistant Commissioner / Executive Officer, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, The Revenue Divisional Officer, The Tahsildar

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil Miscellaneous Petition at SR stage seeking impleadment as respondent in a writ appeal.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought to be impleaded as 6th respondent in the appeal.

Filing Reason

Petitioner wanted to become a party in the appeal.

Previous Decisions

Main writ appeal had been disposed of on 05.03.2024.

Issues

Whether an implead petition can be entertained after the main appeal is disposed of.

Submissions/Arguments

Counsel for petitioner argued for impleadment but later sought withdrawal with liberty to file appeal or other remedy.

Ratio Decidendi

A petition to implead in a disposed appeal is not maintainable; the proper remedy is to file a fresh appeal or other proceeding.

Judgment Excerpts

Since the main writ appeal itself had been disposed of as early as on 05.03.2024, Registry has returned the paper to the Counsel. Permission is granted. Keeping open the said liberty sought for, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition in SR stage stands rejected.

Procedural History

Petitioner filed CMP SR No. 73579 of 2024 seeking impleadment in a writ appeal. Registry returned papers as main appeal disposed on 05.03.2024. Counsel insisted on numbering, matter placed for maintainability. During hearing, counsel sought withdrawal with liberty. Court granted permission and rejected petition.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal Under Section 37 of Arbitration Act, Restores Arbitral Award for Sand Removal Contract Dispute. The court held that the arbitrator's interpretation of contractual terms was plausible and not perverse, and the award did...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Orders Under Section 32(3) of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 — Deputy Director Lacked Jurisdiction to Reopen Final Consolidation Scheme After 30 Years. The court held that once a...