CRP No.3784 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19-02-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA CRP No.3784 of 2023 and CMP No.23508 of 2023 P.Kulandai Perumal Petitioner Vs 1.K.Panneer Selvi (died) 2.M.Ramesh 3.M.Thilagavathi ... Respondents Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 115 of Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the order dated 29.11.2022 made in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in A.S.No.12 of 2020 by III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore @ Thirupathur. For Petitioner : Ms.Mumtaj Surya For Respondents : Mr.V.V.Sathya For Mr.B.M.Kiran Kishan For R.1 PA.Sudesh Kumar M/s Sun Associates 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No.3784 of 2023 ORDER The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore @ Thirupathur in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in A.S.No.12 of 2020 dated 29.11.2022. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the first respondent/Panneer remained ex parte before the trial Court and in such circumstances, the appellate Court ought not to have allowed him to be transposed as appellant when especially the legal heirs of Selvi/plaintiff were contesting the case. She would further submit that despite serious objections made by the petitioner in the court, the appellate court has wrongly held that no valid objection was raised by the petitioner and thereby she seeks to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in A.S.No.12 of 2020. Learned counsel further submits that the case stands posted for judgment on 28.02.2025 and further submits that the petitioner, right from the beginning, was denying that the plaintiff/Selvi and the 2nd respondent/Panneer are not born to him. 3. Per contra, Mr.V.V.Sathya, learned counsel appearing for the first 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No.3784 of 2023 respondent/Panneer would submit that Selvi/plaintiff is the sister of the first respondent/Panneer. Since she was contesting the suit and the petitioner was sailing along with the said Selvi/the plaintiff, he did not contest the case, since if Selvi/plaintiff succeeds, the petitioner will also be entitled 1/3rd share of the property. However, learned counsel submits that after judgment was delivered in the suit, Selvi passed away and the legal heirs of Selvi/plaintiff have filed the appeal and the first respondent has an apprehension that the legal heirs of Selvi might collude with the present petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit which might be prejudicial to his interest and thereby there is every necessity that the first respondent/Panneer has to be transposed as appellant in the case for an effective adjudication of the appeal. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the appellate court has not committed any error in transposing the first respondent/Panneer as first appellant and the first respondent/Panneer should also be given an opportunity to establish his rights. 4. Mr.PA.Sudesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 submits that they are the legal heirs of Selvi/plaintiff, who is the sister of the first respondent/Panneer and they sail in the same boat and and each of them 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No.3784 of 2023 are entitled to 1/3rd share and the respondents 2 and 3 have no objection in the first respondent/Panner being transposed as an appellant. 5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6. This Court is of the opinion that since the plaintiff had claimed that the first respondent/Panneer to be her blood brother and subsequently the first respondent/Panneer remained ex parte, and now, the first respondent/Panneer has an apprehension that the legal heirs of Selvi may join hands with the petitioner/Kulandai Perumal, he has filed a petition seeking for transposing him as appellant. In such situation, there is every reason that the first respondent has to be transposed as an appellant to protect his interest. The Appellate Court rightly finding the need had permitted the first respondent to be transposed as an appellant. 7. I do not find any error or infirmity in the order passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore @ Thirupathur in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in A.S.No.12 of 2020 and thereby the Civil Revision Petition deserves no 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No.3784 of 2023 merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, a direction is issued to the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore @ Thirupathur to dispose A.S.No.12 of 2020 as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 19.02.2025 sr Index:yes/no Website:yes/no To The III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore @ Thirupathur. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No.3784 of 2023 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J., sr CRP No.3784 of 2023 19.02.2025 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis