CRP No. 3817 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-07-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE CRP No. 3817 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 16569 OF 2026 1. Mythili 2. Sasikumar Petitioner(s) Vs 1. Saroja 2.Mohana 3.Anandhayee 4.C.Marimuthu Alias Vijaya 5.V.Pachaiammal 6.V.Maragatham 7.S.Moorthy 8.Sundira Kumar 9.G.Vadamalai alias Peruyanann 10.Alamelu ammal alias Chinnaponnu 11.V.Pavadai 12.V.Selvarasu 13.V.Artchounane 14.Sangeetha 15.Jayanthi https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 3817 of 2026 16.Manibalan 17.Jamuna 18.Aruna 19.Vasantha Respondent(s) PRAYER Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the Order dated 19.02.2026 passed in IA.No.1755 of 2019 in AS.No.31 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge at Puducherry For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.R.Arun Shabari For Respondent(s): Mr. K.S.Karthik Raja ORDER This civil revision petition has been filed, challenging the impugned order dated 19.02.2026 passed by the Principle District Court, Puducherry in I.A. No.1755 of 2019 in A.S. No.31 of 2012. 2. In the aforesaid order, the application filed by the petitioners, who are third parties to A.S. No.31 of 2012, seeking to implead themselves as party respondents in A.S. No.31 of 2012 has been dismissed by giving the following reasons: a) The second petitioner’s father obtained a power of attorney deed dated 27.02.2006 from the plaintiffs and filed the suit on their behalf; b) The suit was filed by the petitioners’ father acting as a power agent for the plaintiffs by suppressing the fact that he has already executed sale deeds https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 3817 of 2026 using the power of attorney obtained from the plaintiffs; c) The petitioners had knowledge about the sale deeds executed by their father even on the dates of their execution, namely 13.06.2007 and 25.06.2007, but, they kept quiet without impleading themselves as parties in the suit; d) The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and the respondents in the said suit, preferred an appeal in A.S. No.31 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Court, Puducherry; e) The second petitioner's father, who was the power agent of the plaintiffs, was shown as a respondent in A.S. No.31 of 2012 and he was arrayed as the power agent of the plaintiffs viz., Anandhayee, Marimuthu @ Vijaya, Patchiammal and V. Maragatham; f) After receipt of summons in the appeal, the second petitioner's father kept quiet without informing the court that the two sale deeds had been executed by him in favour of the petitioners in the year 2007. Later, the second petitioner’s father died; g) The appeal has been pending since the year 2012. The second petitioner's father, Rathinavelu, died in the year 2017; h) I.A. No.1755 of 2019 was filed only in the year 2019. In the normal circumstances, the appeal ought to have been disposed of within six months. But, however, even after the lapse of thirteen years from the date of filing of the appeal, it is yet to be disposed of; https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 3817 of 2026 i) The intention of the petitioners by filing I.A. No.1755 of 2019 is only to drag on the proceedings in the appeal and keep the appeal alive, which amounts to an abuse of the process of law; j) The second petitioner's father in the suit never stated that the petitioners were the owners of the suit schedule property, but acted only as the power agent of the plaintiffs in the suit; k) The sale deeds in favour of the petitioners were not subsequent developments but were executed prior to the filing of the suit. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the interest of the petitioners to safeguard the property chosen by them will be defeated if the impleading application filed by them is not allowed. When sufficient reasons have been given by the Court below in the impugned order for dismissing the application filed by the petitioners, seeking to implead themselves as party respondents in A.S. No.31 of 2012, as stated supra, the question of interfering with the impugned order through this civil revision petition by this Court, does not arise. As highlighted by the court below, the conduct of the petitioners does not entitle them to be impleaded as party respondents in A.S. No.31 of 2012. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 3817 of 2026 4. This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 08-07-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No ab To The Court of the Principal District Judge, Puducherry. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 3817 of 2026 ABDUL QUDDHOSE J. ab CRP No. 3817 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 16569 OF 2026 08-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis