CRP. No.697 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.06.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI CRP. No.697 of 2025 and CMP. No.3974 of 2025 T.Maheshkumar Petitioner(s) Vs Lakshmi (Died) 1.Mohanambal @ Mohanadevi Periyasamy (died) 2.Deepa 3.Karthiga 4.Prabu Chinnasamy (Died) 5.Senthilkumar 6.Sagunthala 7.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Avalpoondurai 8.Jeyamani 9.Pavathal Respondent(s) PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order passed in I.A. No.4 of 2024 in O.S. No.803 of 2015 dated 19.12.2024 by the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode imposing the payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- on the revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff. 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP. No.697 of 2025 For Petitioner : Mr.A.S.Palanisamy For Respondents : Mr.A.Anandan, Government Advocate for R7 No Appearance for R1 to 3, 6, 8 and 9 ********** ORDER The Revision Petitioner has challenged the order in I.A. No.4 of 2024 dated 19.12.2024, in and by which, the Trial Court has allowed an Application filed by the revision petitioner subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- to the respondents 6 and 11 and Rs.1,000/- to the respondents 7, 8 and 12 (totalling Rs.2,000/-) on or before 02.01.2025. The petitioner is not aggrieved by the order allowing impleadment at his instance, however, it is the grievance of the petitioner that in the impleading Application, the Trial Court ought not to have imposed heavy costs. 2. I have heard Mr.A.S.Palanisamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Anandan, learned Government Advocate for R7. 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP. No.697 of 2025 3. On going through the records, I find that the Application for impleadment was not even opposed by the respondents and an endorsement was made on the petition stating that the Application may be allowed on heavy terms. Based on the said endorsement, the Trial Court has proceeded to impose costs of Rs.2,000/- payable by the petitioner. There is no impediment for the Trial Court to impose costs in an impleading Application if it deems fit and proper. I do not find that the imposition of costs is perverse. In fact, the revision petitioner alone wanted impleadment of the third party and his request had been acceded to as well. Therefore, it would be proper for the petitioner to have complied with the order of the Trial Court. 4. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Considering that the petitioner/plaintiff has challenged the order imposing costs, though I am not inclined to accept the challenge on the merits, I deem it fit to grant two weeks time to the revision petitioner to pay costs of Rs.2,000/- imposed by the Trial Court viz., Rs.1,000/- to the respondents 6 and 11 and Rs.1,000/- to the respondents 7, 8 and 12, within a period of two 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP. No.697 of 2025 P.B.BALAJI, J., weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the impelading Application shall stand dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. No costs. 20.06.2025 rkp Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No To: 1. The II Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode. 2.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Avalpoondurai. CRP. No.697 of 2025 and CMP. No.3974 of 2025 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis