C.R.P.No.1709 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26-08-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI C.R.P.No.1709 of 2025 and CMP No.9885 of 2025 P.Sivasamy ... Petitioner Vs 1.K.S.Senathipathi 2.R.Senbagavalli 3.Mrs.R.Devi @ Saraladevi 4.Mrs.Harsha 5.G.Selvalraj 6.R.Srinivasan 7.Mrs.Srivalli ... Respondents Revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decreetal order in I.A.No.20 of 2022 in O.S.No.425 of 2015 dated 17.12.2024 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore and allowing the petition filed by the first respondent under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC. For Petitioner : Mr.V.C.Janarthanan For Respondents: Mr.P.K.Harinath Babu For R.5 Mr.B.Ramesh For R.3 Mr.G.R.M.Palaniappan For R.4 R.2 – died R.6 and R.7 – Not ready in notice ORDER 1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1709 of 2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.425 of 2015 for specific performance. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court in I.A No.20 of 2022, permitting the third party to be impleaded in the suit, the present revision has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the party, who sought to be impleaded, is merely an agreement holder and that too, that the agreement is an unregistered document which was executed way back on 05.09.2022 and according to the learned counsel, the said agreement was not even exhibited before the Court even in the application for impleadment. 4. The specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the amount that was advanced by the proposed party has been refunded by the owner/fourth defendant himself and therefore, there was no cause for impleading the proposed party. 5. Further, it is also the specific case of the petitioner that the proposed 2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1709 of 2025 party has not taken any independent action to enforce the agreement of sale in his favour, till date. Yet another fact is that Item No.2 of the property was already conveyed in favour of the revision petitioner by executing a sale deed, pending the suit. The trial Court, without even considering the contentions advanced by the respondent/the revision petitioner as well as the fourth defendant that there was no cause of action available for the proposed party since the entire advance of Rs.1,50,00,000/- has been repaid and the agreement also had not been exhibited to establish the interest of the third party, the trial Court has erroneously allowed the application. 6. It is settled law that in a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff being Dominus litus, cannot be compelled to litigate against a third party, against whom, the plaintiff does not evince interest to litigate. In any event, the presence of the third party in the present suit for specific performance is not going to add any value and the issues that are going to be adjudicated before the trial court in the suit for specific performance will also not require the presence of the third party. The only issues that will arise for consideration will be as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance and whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1709 of 2025 his obligations under the agreement of sale between the revision petitioner and the father of the fourth defendant. The presence of the third party will only enlarge the scope of the trial in the suit for specific performance which is related to a particular contract of sale between the revision petitioner and the father of the fourth defendant. 7. In view of the above, I am inclined to set aside the order of the trial court, impleading third party as defendant in the suit for specific performance since the third party is neither a proper nor a necessary party to assist the trial court for effective adjudication of the issues that arises for consideration. 8. It is brought to my notice that by order dated 01.08.2022 in CMP No.9724 of 2022 in CMA SR No.56907 of 2022, this Court had directed expeditious disposal of O.S.Nos.425 and 28 of 2015 and 104 of 2019 within a period of four months. Despite the said direction passed by this Court and passage of three years, the suits have not been disposed of by the trial Court. 9. In the light of the above, the learned I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore is directed to disposal of O.S.Nos. 425 and 28 of 2015 and 104 of 4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1709 of 2025 2019 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. With the above direction, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 26.08.2025 Index: Yes/No Website:yes/no Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order sr To The I Additional District Court, Coimbatore 5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1709 of 2025 P.B.BALAJI.,J sr C.R.P.No.1709 of 2025 26.08.2025 22.08.2025 6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis