S. Vimala, J.

1. The suit in O.S. No. 192 of 2000 was filed by the deceased-Subramani against deceased-Munusamy Naidu, seeking the relief of partition and separate possession. The said suit was decreed ex-parte on 25.02.2003.

1.1. On the death of Subramani on 27.04.2003, the second plaintiff, namely, the first respondent herein came to be impleaded, as the second plaintiff, on 25.10.2006. She filed an Application for Final Decree, in I.A. No. 140 of 2006.

1.2. Pending the final decree proceedings, the sole defendant in the suit, Munusamy Naidu, died. The second respondent herein (Maaleeswari) came to be impleaded, as the sole legal heir of the deceased defendant.

1.3. Pending the final decree proceedings, the proposed party/the Revision Petitioner, in both the petitions, filed I.A. Nos. 130 of 2013 and 135 of 2013, seeking to reopen the petition and to implead herself, as a party, respectively and both applications having been filed in the same Interlocutory Application, i.e., I.A. No. 140 of 2006.

1.4. The claim for impleadment was made on the ground that the Revision Petitioner herein purchased the suit property, by virtue of the sale deed, dated 27.12.2004.

1.5. The said application was opposed on the ground that the application for impleadment has been filed, after the passing of the preliminary decree and that the proposed party is not a necessary party.

1.6. The Court, by the order, dated 16.07.2013, dismissed both the petitions. Challenging the same, these two Revision Petitions have been filed.

It is the case of the Revision Petitioner, in both these petitions that she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property right from the year 1992, i.e., prior to the purchase, even though she purchased the property only in the year 2004; several documents have been filed, i.e., Exs.P-1 to P-6, to show that she has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property even prior to the sale; it is not in dispute that Ex.P-8, sale deed, stands in the name of the Revision Petitioner herein and that in the sale deed, her vendor's daughter is an attesting witness as well as identifying witness.

2. Under such circumstances, it has to be decided whether the proposed party ought to have been impleaded as the party in the final decree application.

3. A perusal of the order passed by the lower Court reveals that the petition to implead has been dismissed mainly on the grounds that: (a) when there was an order of injunction, restraining alienation, the Revision Petitioner herein had purchased the property, without obtaining permission of the Court; and (b) the Revision Petitioner has purchased the property after the passing of the preliminary decree.

4. Whether these two grounds are tenable is the issue raised in these Revision Petitions.

5. Contending that the impleadment/presence of the petitioner herein would be in the interest of justice, especially when the defendant remained ex-parte in the suit, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner relied upon the decision reported in (2016) 1 SCC 388 (Dilbag Singh and another v. Ravinder Kaur and another), where-under it has been held as follows:-

"2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the original defendant being set ex-parte, we are of the view that the presence of the appellants in the suit would be in the interest of justice..........."

5.1. Contending that the petitioner herein is a proper and necessary party to the suit, in order to workout the equity, in her favour, the decision reported in (2007) 10 Supreme Court Cases 719 (Dhanalakshmi and Others v. P. Mohan and Others) is relied upon, where-under it has been held as follows:-

"5......Admittedly, the appellants, having purchased the property from the other co-sharers, in our opinion, are entitled to come on record in order to work out the equity in their favour in the final decree proceedings. In our opinion, the appellants are necessary and proper parties to the suit, which is now pending befo