The plaintiff has filed the present suit in O.S.No.39 of 2009 before the learned Principal District Court, Dharmapuri, for partition of the suit schedule of property.

2. The respondents/defendants 1 and 2 were filed objections.

3. While pendency of the suit and prayed for dismissal of the suit against the defendants 1 to 5.

4. The 3rd defendant in the suit in O.S.No.39 of 2009 has filed the Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.184 of 2010 with a prayer to implead the proposed parties 1 to 6 as defendants 6 to 11 in the suit. It is the case of the 3rd defendant is that the respondents 1 and 2/the plaintiffs 1 and 2 for wantonly suppressed the income of the joint family made by way of rents from the letting out the shop in the Item No.2 of the suit property. The Item No.5 of the suit schedule of property has also been let out on the monthly rents by the respondents/plaintiffs and the rental income of the joint family has also been deliberately concealed by the respondents/plaintiffs with ulterior motive.

5. The 3rd defendant also states that the defendants all these item Nos.2 and 5 of the suit properties are proper necessary parties to the suit and for disposal of the suit fairly and finally in the absence of tenants will not be proper. Therefore, he prayed the learned Principal District Judge, to implead the proposed parties.

6. Denying the petitions filed by the 3rd defendant, the plaintiffs who are the petitioners herein are filed a counter affidavit saying that since the suit filed for partition and proposed parties are alleged tenant, they have no share over the suit schedule of property and they are not the necessary parties to the suit. Since the petitioners/plaintiffs also states that the 3rd party cannot be impleaded in the suit for partition and prayed the learned Principal District Court, Dharmapuri to dismiss the petition.

7. Considering the case of the 3rd defendant and plaintiffs, the learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri was allowed the I.A.No.184 of 2010 in O.S.No.39 of 2009, dated 28.02.2011, on the ground that the proposed parties are occupied the buildings as a tenant and the plaintiffs have suppressed the rent income which was derived from the suit scheduled Item Nos.2 and 5 of the suit schedule of properties. The learned Judge also states that the rental income of the joint family also been deliberately concealed by the plaintiffs. Therefore, accepting the request made by the 3rd defendant and decided that the proposed parties are proper and necessary parties to adjudicate the suit as fairly and finally. If the proposed parties are not impleaded as a defendants in the suit, the 3rd defendant is unable to established his case in the suit and allowed the applications. Challenging the said order, the petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in the suit filed the present civil revision petition before this Court.

8. I heard Mr.P.Valliappan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.S.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused all the materials available on record.

9. It is the case of the petitioners/plaintiffs is that the suit filed for partition and prayer in the suit are as follows:

(a) dividing the properties fully described here under in the schedule A & B in to seven equal shares by metes and bounds by taking into consideration of good and bad and allotting each one share (two shares) to the Plaintiffs;

(b) delivering separate possession of such shares allotted to the plaintiffs;

(c) granting injunction restraining the defendants from creating any kind of encumbrances over the suit properties till the partition is completed;”

10. Admittedly, the suit filed only for the partition and the partition suit filed only between the legal heirs of the original suit schedule property and no third party can be implead in the suit.

11. Pending suit, the 3rd defendant has filed the present application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to implead the tenants as defendants in the suit. The l