Third defendant herself was a subsequent purchaser.

1. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit O.S.No.798 of 1989 on the file of the Additional District Munsifs Court, Vellore. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants therein for restraining them from interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit property, which consists of a house and vacant site. The suit was filed against two defendants. Subsequently, one Kanchana purchased the property lis pendens in 1992 and an application was filed to implead her as defendant in the suit. The trial Court impleaded her as third defendant. Of course, the plaintiffs did not challenge such impleadment.

2. Now at the stage, when the plaintiffs evidence was closed and when the Advocate Commissioner has already been examined, the third defendant failed to appear in Court to give evidence, and therefore, her side was closed. She filed I.A.No.740 of 1999 to reopen the case.

3. The third defendant, subsequent purchaser, also filed I.A.No.799 of 2000 to re-issue the warrant on the Advocate Commissioner to once again visit the suit property and file a report on the ground that when the Commissioner visited the suit property on earlier occasion, she was not a party to the suit.

4. One Settu, who purchased the suit property from the third defendant on 09.02.1998 during pendency of the suit, filed I.A.No.800 of 2000 to implead himself as a party in the suit on the ground that he has purchased the property.

5. The learned Additional District Munsif allowed the applications on payment of cost of Rs.100/-each. Aggrieved over the orders of the learned Additional District Munsif, Vellore, the plaintiffs have filed all these revision petitions.

6. As regards I.A.740 of 2000 is concerned, it could be seen that though it is an old suit of more than 14 years, the learned Additional District Munsif has taken a lenient view against the third defendant for her failure to appear in Court to give evidence and allowed the application on payment of cost of Rs.100/-. However, for the reason of giving an opportunity to the third defendant to agitate her right on merits, if any subsists on her, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order, excepting that only one chance on a particular day to be fixed within two weeks of the receipt of this order, has to be given to the third defendant to give evidence and her evidence should be closed on that day. Therefore, C.R.P.1594 of 2002 has to be dismissed of with the above observation.

7. As regards I.A.No.799 of 2000 is concerned, the third defendant has filed the application to re-issue the warrant to the Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property and file a fresh report on the ground that when the Commissioner visited the suit property earlier, she was not a party to the suit. The third defendant had purchased the property during pendency of the suit. The physical features of the property noted down by the Commissioner at the time of inspection, alone is sufficient for just decision of the case and subsequent modification will not have a bearing on the suit. Further, as it is now shown that the third defendant herself sold the suit property in favour of one Settu, who filed application in I.A.No.800 of 2000, the third defendant has no subsisting interest in the suit property, and therefore, the application in I.A.No.799 of 2000 ought to have been dismissed in limini. Hence, the order of the learned Additional District Munsif passed in I.A.No.799 of 2000 has to be set aside and C.R.P.No.1595 of 2002 has to be allowed.

8. As regards I.A.No.800 of 2000 is concerned, it is an application of a third party, a subsequent purchaser from the third defendant, who herself was a subsequent purchaser during lis pendens. This is a classical case of how parties drag on the proceedings by transferring the suit property from one hand to another to see that the litigation does not come to an end. The learned Counsel appearing for the first re