JUDGMENT :

Ext.P5 order allowing an application for impleadment filed under order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the CPC’) is under challenge in this original petition.

2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs, and the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are the defendants in O.S.No.440/2015 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Palakkad (for short 'the trial court'). The suit was one for permanent prohibitory injunction against trespass. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st respondent herein, who was not a party to the suit, filed Ext.P3 application to get himself impleaded as supplemental 4th defendant. The trial court allowed Ext.P3 application as per Ext.P5 order. It is challenging the said order; the plaintiffs have filed this original petition.

3. I have heard Sri. C. Vinod Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners. In spite of the service of notice, the respondents have not appeared.

4. The suit is one for a permanent prohibitory injunction based on possession. The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaint schedule property belongs to them and is in their possession, and the defendants are trying to trespass therein. The defendants entered appearance and filed E