CRP No. 4353 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE CRP No. 4353 of 2026 1. Olympic Cards Limited Rep. by its Managing Director, N.Mohamed Faizal, Registered Office at No.195, N.S.C Bose Road, Chennai-01. 2. Olympic Cards Limited Rep. by its Managing Director, N.Mohamed Faizal, Old No.23, New No.53, Anderson Street, Chennai-01. 3. N.Mohamed Faizal Managing Director, Olympic Cards Ltd, No.195, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-01. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. R.Selvamani 2. R.Murugadoss 3. M.Natesa Chetty and Co., Rep. by its Fit Person, Old No.23, New No.53, Anderson Street, Chennai-01. ..Respondent(s) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 4353 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 6 This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the order dated 15.06.2026 passed in IA No. 6 of 2026 in OS No. 191 of 2023 by the X Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Dileepan for M/s. T.M. Naidu and Co. For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Munuswamy Counsel for Caveator R1 and R2 ORDER This Civil Revision Petition (CRP) has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the X Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, in I.A.No.6 of 2026 in O.S.No.191 of 2023, dated 15.06.2026. 2. In the aforesaid order, the application filed by the petitioners, who are the defendants in the suit, seeking to implead the third respondent as a party defendant in the suit and the counter-claim, has been dismissed by giving the following reasons: (a) I.A.No.6 of 2026 was filed by the petitioners/defendants only after the disposal of I.A.No.5 of 2026. (b) The suit is in the stage of cross-examination of PW1. (c) The ground raised by the defendants to implead the third respondent as a party defendant in the suit and the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 4353 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 6 counter-claim is that in the name of the third respondent/proposed third defendant, the tax invoices were raised and GST was collected. (d) Merely because the GST on the rent was paid by the defendants in the name of the third respondent/proposed third defendant, the third respondent need not be impleaded in the suit. (e) The dispute between the petitioners/defendants and the respondents 1 and 2 / plaintiffs is only with regard to tenancy and related issues. (f) The third respondent/proposed third defendant in whose name the respondents 1 and 2 / plaintiffs have been paying taxes as an entity is no way connected to the suit or the counter claim. (g) The application has been filed by the petitioners/defendants only to delay the disposal of the suit. 3. This Court does not find any infirmity in the reasons given by the trial Court for dismissing the petitioners’ application. This Court also takes note of the fact that, in the earlier CRP filed by the very same petitioners aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A.No.5 of 2026, this Court, while disposing of CRP.No.3759 of 2026, dated 13.07.2026, directed the trial Court to receive photographs filed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 4353 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 6 by the petitioners as additional documents and mark the same as exhibits, subject to admission, proof and relevancy; and further issued a specific direction to the trial Court to dispose of the suit O.S.No.191 of 2023, within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. However, when CRP.No.3759 of 2026 was disposed of by this Court on 13.07.2026, the petitioners’ counsel did not inform this Court that an impleading application is pending consideration by the trial Court. Only in the presence of the petitioners’ counsel, a direction was issued to the trial Court to dispose of the said suit within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of the order dated 13.07.2026. The trial Court has rightly held that the petitioners have filed the aforesaid application only to drag on the proceedings, as their conduct in filing one more CRP, despite a specific direction having been issued by this Court on 13.07.2026, confirms the said finding. 4. The suit has been filed for recovery of possession. The petitioners dispute the contention of the respondents 1 and 2 / plaintiffs in the suit and has filed a counter-claim. Only after giving due consideration to the respective contentions and in the interest of justice, this Court had directed the trial Court to dispose of the aforesaid suit within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of the order dated 13.07.2026 passed in CRP.No.3759 of 2026. Only to circumvent the said direction and only to delay the disposal of the suit, the petitioners have chosen to file this CRP. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 4353 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 6 5. The decision dated 12.09.2019 passed in CRP(MD) No.42 of 2012 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in his notes of submission before the trial Court pertains to a partition suit, whereas the instant suit is for recovery of possession. The facts of the said case has no bearing to the facts of the instant case. Further, the conduct of the petitioners as recorded supra by this Court also makes it clear that only to delay the disposal of the suit O.S.No.191 of 2023, the petitioners had filed I.A.No.6 of 2026. 6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in this Civil Revision Petition, and accordingly, it is dismissed. No Costs. CMP.No.19143 of 2026 is closed. 29-07-2026 Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKM To X Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 4353 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 6 ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J. RKM CRP No. 4353 of 2026 29-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis