1. The revision petitioner/first respondent/plaintiff has preferred this civil revision petition as against the orders dated 12. 2008 in I.A.No.773 of 2007 in O.S.No.181 of 2006 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Chenalpattu in allowing the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC by the respondents/proposed defendants 1 to 9 praying to implead themselves as defendants 3 to 11 in the suit.

2. The trial Court, while allowing the I.A.No.773 of 2007 has accepted the plea of the respondents 1 to 9 and has allowed the application.

3. The learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff contends that the order of the trial Court in allowing the I.A.No.773 of 2007 is wholly without jurisdiction both in law and on facts and that the trial Court has not taken note of the fact that in the suit for specific performance, the persons who are not parties in the suit agreement are not proper or necessary parties and that the respondents 1 to 9 cannot enlarge the scope of the specific performance suit, by making some alleged claims against the defendants in the suit and this aspect of the matter has not been taken into by the trial Court in the proper perspec