The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of timely impleadment of necessary or proper parties to the appeal, as provided in Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the consequences of serious laches in filing such petitions.

1. This petition has been filed under Order I Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure by the peti-tioners praying to implead them as respondents in the above Appeal Suit.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioners would submit that the appellant/second defendant purchased the suit properties in court auction under the mortgage decree in O.S. No. 104 of 1972 on the file of the court of Subordinate Judge, Chingleput on 30.10.1985 and he took delivery through court on 10.1.1986 in E.P. No. 2 of 1984; that the third defendant to the suit, who is the 5th respondent in the above appeal was claiming title to the suit properties under another sale in court auction held on 6.2.1980 in E.P. No. 92 of 1976 that arose from out of money decree in O.S. No. 5377 of 1970; that the third defendant to the suit alienated the property in favour of the plaintiffs and the defendants 5 to 56 and the plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S. No. 9300 of 1987 for declaration of their title in respect of the portions purchased by them and for Permanent Injunction or in the alternative to set aside the sale deed in favour of the appellant/second defendant.

3. The petitioners would further submit that coming to know that the suit properties were for sale from the appellant/second defendant, they purchased the suit property under six registered sale deeds at the final stage of hearing of the suit before the lower court and that now they are advised to implead themselves as parties to the appeal proceedings and on such grounds would pray to implead them as respondents to the above Appeal Suit.

4. In the counter filed by the fourth respondent in the above petition who is the third respondent in the above Appeal Suit, besides generally denying the allegations of the petition as false, he would specifically submit that the said suit in O.S. No. 9300 of 1987 had been decreed by the City Civil Court, Madras on 28.10.1991 itself; that during the pendency of the suit, in the year 1990, the petitioners are said to have purchased and acquired interest in the suit properties subject to the result of the litigation; that even after acquiring interest in the suit properties, they did not seek the permission of the court to continue the proceedings in their name and hence now the petitioners are estopped from impleading themselves as parties to the above Appeal Suit particularly under the Order I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, which is not at all maintainable.

4a. The fourth respondent to the above petition would further contend in the counter that the first petitioner herein, who is admittedly the power of Attorney Agent of the appellant, having come forward to file the above appeal in such capacity, cannot be both the agent of the appellant and the respondent as well in the same proceeding; that absolutely no reasons have been given for impleading them as parties; that they are the subsequent purchasers and not at all in possession of the suit property; that respondents 2 to 4 and 6 to 58 alone are in physical possession of the suit properties; that the petitioners are bound by the result of the suit and that the first respondent to the appeal died even before the institution of the appeal and the very appeal against the dead person is a nullity. For these and other such reasons assigned, the fourth respondent would pray to dismiss the above petition with costs.

5. In the counter affidavit filed by the 10th respondent, besides generally denying the averments of the petition as false and made with ulterior motives, this respondent also would specifically allege that only to the knowledge of the pendency of the suit, the proposed parties have purchased the suit properties, but they have failed to implead themselves as parties to the suit to participate in the suit proceedings; that after the expiry of nearly ten years, the petitioners have now come forward to implead themselves as respondents in the Appeal Suit without any specific