Satisfactory grounds not given for interference by High Court.

This revision arises out of the order of the Additional District Munsif, Gingee, made in I.A. No.227/2001 in O.S.No. 600/1995, dismissing the petition filed under Or.1, R.10(2) CPC. The Plaintiffs are the Revision Petitioners.

2. O.S.No.600/1995:-

The suit property originally belonged to the family of Ayyakannu Gounder. Genealogy of Ayyakannu Gounder is as under :-

3.The sons and daughters of Ayyakannu Gounder have partitioned the family properties by a Partition Deed dated 14.10.1959. The said Muniammal had executed a Settlement Deed dated 04.03.1962, settling the properties in favour of her daughters. The Settlement Deed executed by Muniammal was acted upon. Pursuant to the Settlement Deed, the second Defendant has no manner of interest or right in the suit property, but has been laying claim over the suit property. Hence claiming that the Plaintiffs are entitled to half share, the Plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition.

4.Denying the right and share of the Plaintiffs, the second Defendant has filed the Written Statement referring to the earlier suit O.S.No.460/1983. According to the second Defendant, the suit O.S.No.460/1983 is the comprehensive suit filed by the second Defendant. In the said suit, the present Plaintiff Lakshmi Ammal and Rukumani Ammal have filed the Written Statement. But they did not further prosecute their defence. The suit O.S.No.460/1983 was decreed in favour of the second Defendant. Pursuant to the Preliminary Decree, the second Defendant had filed I.A.No.899/1993 – Application for passing final decree. The present Plaintiffs are well aware of O.S.No.460/1983. But suppressing the suit O.S.No.460/1983, the Plaintiffs have filed the suit claiming half share in the suit properties. In the Written Statement, the second Defendant has also pleaded that the suit is bad for partial partition and also for non-impleading of necessary parties.

5. I.A.No.227/2001:-

The Plaintiff has filed this application under Or.1 R.10(2) CPC to implead the parties stated in the petition. According to the Plaintiff, the proposed parties have purchased portions of the properties from the Plaintiffs and also from the first Defendant. The second Defendant has filed Written Statement raising objection for the said sale in favour of those third parties. Since the second Defendant had raised plea challenging those sale deeds, it is necessary to implead those purchasers, viz., proposed parties as D-3 to D-9.

6.The application was resisted by the second Defendant contending that the application has been filed belatedly. It was further alleged that in the suit O.S.No.460/1983 decree was passed against the Plaintiffs and Lakshmiammal and the Plaintiffs are bound by the same. When that being so, the Plaintiffs cannot seek to implead the proposed parties as Defendants 3 to 9.

7.The trial Court dismissed the petition pointing out that the Plaintiffs have not shown as to how the proposed parties are necessary parties for effective adjudication. The learned District Munsif found that even in the plaint, it has been stated that the Plaintiffs are not claiming partition regarding the properties sold by Lakshmiammal and first Defendant and in view of that definite plea adopted by the Plaintiff, it was found that the proposed parties are not necessary parties and on those findings, the learned District Munsif dismissed the application.

8.Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has contended that when Lakshmi Ammal has sold the properties to the proposed parties and since the Defendant has raised the plea that the suit is bad for partial partition and non joinder of necessary parties, it is contended that for effective adjudication, the proposed parties are to be impleaded as parties to the suit. The impugned order is assailed contending that the trial Court erred in dismissing the petition on the ground of delay. It is further submitted that the application for impleading the parties could be filed a