Counsel for the first respondent-plaintiff submits that the suit O. S. No. 193 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Kottayam in which the petitioners sought to get themselves impleaded has been decreed on December 12, 1989. This is not disputed by counsel for the petitioners. The question whether the lower court was right in rejecting the application to implead does not, therefore, survive for consideration at this stage. The revision petition is liable to be dismissed on this preliminary ground itself.

2. But there is no merit either in the revision petition. The suit is one for recovery of an amount of over rupees thirtyone lakhs from respondents 2 and 3 by sale of the mortgaged properties, which include the establishment where the petitioners are stated to be working. This establishment is a factory "manufacturing" coffee powder. The petitioners are not parties to the mortgage transaction, nor are they liable for the whole or any portion of the amount claimed in the suit. But they sought to get themselves impleaded as parties on the allegation that they are workers in the establishment, their right to work therein was likely to be affected by the sale of the