ORDER: It is brought to the notice of the Court that service of notice on the respondents 1 to 3 is pending. In order to avoid the avoidable delay and in view of the fact that the available materials would be suffice to give a disposal to this revision, the following order is made.

2. This revision has arisen from the order of the learned District Munsif dismissing an interlocutory application filed by the petitioners herein seeking for the impleadment of the respondents 4 to 7 herein as parties to the proceedings in I.A.No.1022 of 1995.

3. It was a suit filed by the petitioners herein against the respondents 1 to 3 herein seeking for partition of the suit property. As could be well seen from the available materials on hand, a preliminary decree was passed in the said suit on 18.8.1995. Subsequently, final decree application in I.A.No.1022 of 1995 was filed by the plaintiffs, wherein the trial Court had appointed Mr.V. Ponnusamy, Advocate as a Commissioner to divide the suit properties into four equal shares. The said Commissioner on inspection, has filed his report. At that juncture, the instant application has been filed by the petitioners to add the respondents 4 to 7 as parties to the final decree proceedings. On contest, the lower Court dismissed the said application, which has culminated in this revision.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that in view of the fact that the petitioners came to know about the purchaser of a portion of the suit property by the respondents 4 to 7 from the first respondent herein only after the filing of the report by the commissioner appointed by the trial Court, the respondents 4 to 7 have got to be necessarily impleaded as parties; that the approach of the trial Court suffers from material illegality; that even though the preliminary decree was passed, still the said alienees could be added as parties to the said suit for the effective adjudication of the controversy between the parties and so also for avoiding multiplicity of proceedings. Countering to the above contentions of the petitioners’ side, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 to 7 would urge that the respondents 4 to 7 have purchased the eastern half of the suit properties from the defendants 1 and 2 through their power agent A.Thangavel on 5.6.1992 and 3.6.1992; that the defendants 1 and 2 were keeping mum till 1995, and they instigated the petitioners herein to file the above suit for partition; that the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 3 have joined together and allowed the plaintiffs to file the said suit; that the instant application for impleadment is a belated one; and that since the respondents 4 to 7 herein are not necessary or proper parties, the request of the petitioners has got to be rejected.

5. As could be well seen from the available materials, pursuant to a preliminary decree, that was passed on 18.8.1995 in a suit for partition, filed by the petitioners- plaintiffs an application was taken out by them for passing of final decree. During the pendency of the same, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to divide the suit properties into four equal shares. The Advocate Commissioner has returned the commission warrant stating that he could not execute the commission warrant; that there were constructions on the eastern half of the suit property, put pup ny persons, who have purchased the same from the defendants 1 and 2 even prior to the suit, and hence the suit property could not be divided into four equal shares, as per the preliminary passed by the trial Court. As per the preliminary decree, the suit property was to be divided into four equal shares, and three of such shares were to be allotted to the plaintiffs. Thus, from the report of the advocate Commissioner, it would be abundantly clear that though a preliminary decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs, it could not be given effect to. Under such circumstances, the plaintiffs filed the instant application to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document