Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Veeramani, filed a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated August 29, 2022 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi in I.A.No.696 of 2022 in O.S.No.8 of 2012. The trial court had dismissed the petitioner's application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking to implead him as the 2nd plaintiff in the suit. The original suit was filed by Manickammal for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents, claiming that her husband Ayyasamy Udaiyar executed a Gift Settlement Deed in her favour on July 2, 2004. The petitioner claimed that he is the son of Ayyasamy Udaiyar and Manickammal, and that the suit property is ancestral property in which he has a share. The trial court dismissed the application on the ground of delay and laches, as the suit was pending since 2012. The High Court observed that the petitioner's claim of co-ownership is a substantial right that requires adjudication, and that impleadment would enable effective and complete adjudication of the dispute. The court held that there is no limitation period for filing an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, and that the trial court's reasoning on delay was erroneous. The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the trial court to implead the petitioner as the 2nd plaintiff in the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Impleadment of Plaintiff - Order I Rule 10 CPC - Necessary and Proper Party - The court held that a person claiming co-ownership in the suit property is a necessary and proper party for effective adjudication of the dispute. The trial court erred in dismissing the impleadment application on the ground of delay and laches, as there is no limitation period for filing an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC. The court allowed the revision petition and directed the trial court to implead the petitioner as the 2nd plaintiff. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, claiming to be a co-owner of the suit property, is entitled to be impleaded as a plaintiff in the pending suit under Order I Rule 10 CPC.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition, set aside the impugned order dated August 29, 2022, and directed the trial court to allow I.A.No.696 of 2022 and implead the petitioner as the 2nd plaintiff in O.S.No.8 of 2012. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.18929 of 2022 is closed.
Law Points
- Order I Rule 10 CPC
- impleadment
- necessary party
- proper party
- effective adjudication
- no limitation period for impleadment
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (01) 320
C.R.P.No.3563 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.18929 of 2022
Mr.T.Sezhian, Mr.R. Nalliyappan
Kannayiram (died), Ramasamy, K.Vetrikodi, K. Kumaresan, K. Kumutha
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil Revision Petition against dismissal of impleadment application under Order I Rule 10 CPC in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to set aside the trial court's order dismissing his application to implead him as 2nd plaintiff in the suit.
Filing Reason
Petitioner claimed to be a co-owner of the suit property and sought impleadment to protect his rights.
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed I.A.No.696 of 2022 on August 29, 2022 on grounds of delay and laches.
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to be impleaded as a plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 CPC despite the suit being pending since 2012.
Whether delay and laches can be a ground to reject an impleadment application under Order I Rule 10 CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he is the son of the original plaintiff and defendant, and has a share in the ancestral property, making him a necessary party.
Respondents opposed the impleadment citing delay and laches, as the suit was filed in 2012.
Ratio Decidendi
An application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleadment is not subject to any limitation period; the court must consider whether the applicant is a necessary or proper party for effective adjudication. Delay alone cannot be a ground to reject such application if the applicant has a substantial right in the subject matter.
Judgment Excerpts
Feeling Aggrieved by the Dismissal Order dated August 29, 2022 passed in I.A.No.696 of 2022 in O.S.No.8 of 2012 on the file of the ‘Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi’ (hereinafter referred as ‘Trial Court’) filed under Order I Rule 10 of the ‘Code of Civil Procedure, 1908’ (‘CPC’ for short) to implead the Petitioner therein as the 2nd Plaintiff in the Suit, the Petitioner therein has filed this Civil Revision Petition.
The court held that there is no limitation period for filing an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, and that the trial court's reasoning on delay was erroneous.
Procedural History
The original suit O.S.No.8 of 2012 was filed by Manickammal for declaration and permanent injunction. The petitioner filed I.A.No.696 of 2022 under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead himself as 2nd plaintiff. The trial court dismissed the application on August 29, 2022. The petitioner then filed the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. During the pendency of the revision, the first respondent died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The High Court reserved judgment on December 16, 2025 and pronounced on January 6, 2026.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order I Rule 10
- Constitution of India, 1950: Article 227
