The petitioner challenges the order dated 22-9-2005 passed by the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kodad.

2. Petitioner filed O.S.No.260 of 2003 against the 5th respondent herein, for the relief of partition of the suit schedule properties into two equal parts and allotment of a share to her. A preliminary decree was passed on 12-2-2004. Thereafter, the petitioner filed l.A.No.244 of 2004 for final decree. The trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner, and he, in turn, submitted a report, and the parties did not file any objections to it. The trial Court passed a final decree on 6-10-2004, in terms of the report of the Commissioner.

3. Respondents 1 to 4 herein filed an application before the trial Court, for impleading them as defendants 2 to 5, in the suit. They claimed interest in the suit schedule property, and intended to oppose .the proceedings. Through the order under revision, the trial Court allowed the l.A. Hence, this C.R.P.

4. Sri Brahmaiah Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the final decree was passed in the suit, it was not open to the trial Court to implead respondents 1 to 4 herein, as defendants 2 to 5. He contends that for all practi