This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of the trial Judge, namely the Principal District Munsif, Alandur dated 07.01.2016 made in I.A. No. 138/2014 in O.S. No. 417/2013 on the file of the said court. The said suit came to be filed against one Ambuja Narasimhan. On the date of presentation of the plaint itself, the said Ambuja Narasimhan was no mare. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the above said application I.N. No. 138/2014 under Order I Rule 3 CPC praying for impleadment of the revision petitioners herein as defendants 2 to 7 in the said suit. The application was resisted on the ground that the suit filed against a dead person was non-est and also on the ground that the cause of action did not survive the death of Ambuja Narasimhan.

2. The learned trial Judge, after hearing, upheld the contention of the plaintiff, rejected the objection raised by the proposed parties, who are the revision petitioners and allowed the said application for impleadment. The said order dated 07.01.2016 is challenged in the present civil revision petition.

3. Respondent has entered appearance through counsel. The arguments advanced by Mr. Rathina Asohan, learned counsel for the petitioners and by Mr. N. Baskharan, learned counsel for the respondent are heard. The certified copy of the impugned order and copies of the other documents produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in the revision that the order of the trial court shall be unsustainable on the following grounds:

(i) The suit having been filed against a dead person is a nullity and it cannot be allowed to be resurrected by permitting the plaintiff to implead the revision petitioners as party-defendants;

(ii) The suit is one for a bare injunction on the sole cause of action that some persons, on behalf of Ambuja Narasimhan, made an attempt to trespass into the property and hence Ambuja Narasimhan should be injuncted from doing so. As the cause of action for such an injunction is personal against Ambuja Narasimhan, the cause of action will not survive the death of Ambuja Narasimhan. In fact on the date of the filing of the suit itself there was no cause of action and the cause of action was illusory.

5. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent/plaintiff was not aware of the death of Ambuja Narasimhan at the time of filing of the suit and that though normally a suit against a dead person may be a nullity, if the plaintiff comes forward with a plea of absence of knowledge of death immediately after he gets such knowledge, for substitution of LRs, the same should be allowed. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff relies on a judgmnet of the Supreme Court in Karuppaswamy and others vs. R. Ramamurthy reported in AIR 1993 Supreme Court 2324.

6. This court paid its anxious consideration to the above said submissions made on both sides.

7. The application for impleadment came to be filed under Order I Rule 3 CPC. Order I Rule 3 CPC simply says who may be joined as defendants while filing the suit. For better appreciation Rule 3 is reproduced hereunder:

3. Who may be joined as defendants.- All persons may be joined in one suit as defendants where -

(a) any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist against such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative; and

(b) if separate suits were brought against such persons, any common question of law or fact would arise.

The said rule is quoted for the simple purpose of showing that the petition has not been filed under proper provision. If at all the respondent herein/plaintiff wanted to implead a third party as a party-defendant, the respondent/plaintiff should have invoked Rule 10(2) of Order I or else Section 151 of