CRP No. 4024 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE CRP No. 4024 of 2026 1. Seetha 2. Ganapathi ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. Ambika 2. B.Mohanraj ..Respondent(s) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the order dt. 07.03.2026 passed in I.A.No. 4/2025 in O.S.No.160 of 2015 by the Sub Court, Tirupathur. For Petitioner(s): Mr.T.Harish Chowdhary For Respondent(s): ORDER This Civil Revision Petition (CRP) has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the Sub-Court, Tirupathur, in I.A.No. 4 of 2025 in O.S.No.160 of 2015, dated 07.03.2026. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 4024 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 4 2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit O.S.No.160 of 2015 pending on the file of Sub-Court, Tirupathur. The suit has been filed for partition against the first respondent/defendant. During the pendency of the suit, after the trial had commenced, the petitioners/plaintiffs had filed an application in I.A.No.4 of 2025 seeking to implead one Mr.B.Mohanraj as the second defendant in the suit. According to the petitioners, the said Mohanraj is the subsequent purchaser of one of the items of the suit schedule property from the first respondent/defendant, who is the mother of the petitioners. 3. Under the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioners has been dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay on the part of the petitioners in filing the application seeking to implead one Mr.B.Mohanraj, the subsequent purchaser. As seen from the impugned order, the petitioners/plaintiffs were aware of the sale deed executed in favour of Mr.B.Mohanraj in the year 2013 itself, which is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The trial Court has also observed in the impugned order that when the petitioners/plaintiffs themselves admit that the proposed party is not a co-sharer, the necessity of impleading him at this belated stage does not arise. No proper reasons have also been given by the petitioners/plaintiffs for the inordinate delay for filing the impleading application. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 4024 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 4 4. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order for dismissing the petitioners/plaintiffs’ application for impleadment. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No Costs. CMP.No.17609 of 2026 is closed. 22-07-2026 Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKM To Sub-Court, Tirupattur. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 4024 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 4 ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J. RKM CRP No. 4024 of 2026 22-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis