Common Order: These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by third parties to a decree, passed by the II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, challenging a common order, by which, their applications to condone the delay and to grant leave to file a First Appeal, were dismissed by the lower Appellate Court.

2. I have heard Mr. M. Venkatachalapathy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.P.Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent, who has entered caveat.

3. The respondents 1 to 5 herein filed a suit in O.S.No.2549 of 1991 on the file of the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, against the respondents 6 and 7 herein, seeking the following reliefs:-

(a) for declaration of plaintiffs and second defendants title to the B Schedule property;

(b) for mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to restore or put up the wall ABCD in the B Schedule property as before.

(c) for mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to remove the construction put up in the B Schedule property.

(d) for mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to remove debris and other rubbish and bricks dumped in the B Schedule property.

(e) for injunction restraining the first defendant from in any way interfering with the possession and enjoyment of B Schedule property by plaintiffs and second defendant and

(f) for recovery of possession of encroached portion in the B Schedule property from the first defendant to plaintiffs.

4. While the sixth respondent herein (first defendant in the suit) filed a written statement and contested the suit, the seventh respondent herein (second defendant) remained ex parte. One witness was examined on either side and 19 documents were filed on the side of the plaintiffs. No documents were filed on the side of the defendants.

5. By a judgment and decree dated 22. 2004, the trial Court dismissed the suit, after holding that the plaintiffs were not entitled to either a declaration or permanent or mandatory injunction and that the plaintiffs were also not entitled to the relief of recovery of possession. The trial Court actually accepted the case of the first defendant that there was no ABCD wall or CDEF pathway.

6. The decree passed by the trial Court attained finality, since the plaintiffs did not challenge it on appeal. Without challenging the decree of dismissal of the suit, passed on 22. 2004, the plaintiffs in the suit (respondents 1 to 5 herein) sold an undivided share in the suit A Schedule property to the first petitioner herein, by a sale deed dated 4. 2006 registered as document No.381 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Sowcarpet. The second defendant in the suit who remained ex parte, (seventh respondent herein) also sold his share to the petitioners herein, by a sale deed dated 7. 2006 registered as document No.818 of 2006, in the office of the Sub Registrar, Sowcarpet. Thus, the petitioners herein became the owners of the suit A Schedule property, after two years of the judgment and decree that went against their vendors.

7. After purchasing the suit A Schedule property, the petitioners herein filed an appeal in A.S.S.R.No.37262 of 2006 against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, along with CMP No.1605 of 2006 to grant leave to file the appeal and CMP No.1606 of 2006 to condone the delay of 545 days in filing the appeal. These two petitions were dismissed by the lower Appellate Court, by a common order dated 7. 2008. It is against this order that the petitioners have come up with the present Civil Revision Petitions.

8. Mr. M. Venkatachalapathy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that under Order XXII, Rule 10 read with Section 146 CPC, the petitioners had become successors in interest to the plaintiffs and that therefore the right to prosecute the remedy of appeal devolved on the petitioners. He also contended that by virtue of Sections 41 and 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, the petitioners had a right