1. The revision petitioner/petitioner/defendant has projected this Civil Revision Petition before this Court as against the order dated 28.08.2009 in I.A.No.9542 of 2009 in O.S.No.7745 of 1985 passed by the learned III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. Thetrial Court while passing orders in I.A.No.9542 of 2009 in O.S.No.7745 of 1985 on 28.08.2009 as among other things observed that ".....Accordingly respondents took out an application for impleadment in the Final Decree proceedings and the same was allowed. As against the said order, the petitioner filed C.R.P.No.4172 of 2008 and the same was dismissed. So the impleadment was confirmed by the Honble High Court. So the present petition filed by the petitioner is unwarranted and misleading" and resultantly dismissed the application with cost of Rs.500/- to be paid to the respondents.

3. Against the order in I.A.No.9542 of 2009 in O.S.No.7745 of 1985 passed by the learned III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, the revision petitioner/petitioner/defendant has preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

4. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that the order of the trial Court in I.A.No.9542 of 2009 dated 28.08.2009 in dismissing the application by a single line observing that "the petition filed by the petitioner is unwarranted and misleading" is not a valid one in the eye of law because of the simple fact that the said order is not a reasoned one and further the said order has been passed without considering the averments made by the Revision Petitioner in his affidavit in I.A.No.9542 of 2009.

5. Continuing further, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/defendant contends that the eighth respondent was not a party to O.S.No.7745 of 1985 and indeed he was not a party to the Preliminary Decree proceedings and as such, the approach of the trial Court in straight away impleading the eighth respondent to the Final Decree proceedings in O.S.No.7745 of 1985 is contrary to Law.

6. That apart, it is the contention of the Revision Petitioner/Defendant that when once the eighth respondent himself declared that the Revision Petitioner/Defendant alone is the sole and absolute owner of the suit property, which is at the stage of passing of a Final Decree, the eighth respondent, who is not a party to the suit as well as to the Preliminary Decree cannot be allowed to make a claim pertaining suit property, when the earlier C.R.P.No.3937 of 2007 filed by him was dismissed on 24.04.2008.

.7. The sum and substance of the contention of the Revision Petitioner/Defendant is that when the eighth respondent was not a party to the suit as well as to the Preliminary Decree and when he had given up his claim over the suit property, the same could not be permitted to be reagitated in the present suit without seeking to withdraw/Recall his memo of compromise dated 111. 1986 filed in C.M.A.No.70 of 1986 in O.S.No.7745 of 1985.

8. Accordingto the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Defendant, the above aspects have not been adverted to or appreciated by the trial Court in a proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and therefore prays for allowing the Civil Revision Petition to prevent an aberration of justice.

9. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the eighth respondent submits that the eighth respondent was made a party to the suit in O.S.No.7745 of 1985 and that he has filed his written statement and on the basis of the written statement, the petitioner had filed an interlocutory application to withdraw the eighth respondents name from the suit and that a Preliminary Decree was passed and an appeal was filed against the Judgement and Decree passed in O.S.No.7745 of 1985 and A.S.No.821 of 1988 filed by the Revision Petitioner/Defendant as appellant was partly allowed by this Court on 04.08.2003 by modifying the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court made in O.S.No.7745 of 1985 dated 23.03.1988 and the Preliminary De