JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.6 of 2020 in O.S.No.38 of 2020 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Devakottai, dated 04.11.2020.)

1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.6 of 2020 in O.S.No.38 of 2020, dated 04.11.2020, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Devakottai, in allowing the petition for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The revision petitioners, who are the respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs have filed the suit originally in O.S.No. 23 of 2019, before the District Munsif Court, Devakottai, against the fourth respondent, who is the sole defendant claiming the relief of declaration and recovery of possession and for permanent injunction. Subsequently, on the point of jurisdiction, the suit was transferred to the Subordinate Court, Devakottai and the same was taken on file in O.S.No. 38 of 2020. Since the defendant has not entered appearance before the District Munsif Court, he was set ex-parte on 14.08.2019 and after transfer, the said order setting him ex-parte was confirmed on 19.03.2020.

3. Thereafter, the defendant has filed the petition under Order 9 Rule 7 C.P.C for setting aside the ex-parte order in I.A.No.4 of 2020 and the learned Subordinate Judge, after enquiry, has passed an order, dated 09.10.2020, dismissing the said petition. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant sold the suit property and adjoining properties to one Kathiresan on 24.10.2019 and thereafter the said Kathiresan died on 01.09.2020.

4. The legal representatives of the deceased Kathiresan, who are the respondents 1 to 3/ third parties have filed the above petition under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C in I.A.No.6 of 2020, for impleading them as the defendants 2 to 4 in the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge, after enquiry, has passed the impugned order, dated 04.11.2020, permitting the impleadment. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs have come forward with the present revision.

5. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners would mainly contend that despite the order of interim injunction granted by the Trial Court restraining the defendant from alienating and encumbering the suit property, the defendant sold the suit property to the father of the respondents 1 to 3 on 24.10.2019 and that the Trial Court ought to have dismissed the impleading application. The learned Counsel would further contend that the learned Trial Judge had erred in holding that the result of the suit will bind the respondents 1 to 3 as contemplated under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, that since the father of the respondents 1 to 3 had purchased the property when the injunction order was in force, neither the purchaser nor the legal representatives of the purchaser can be considered as necessary party or a proper party, that the respondents 1 to 3 have nowhere pleaded in their affidavit that their father had no knowledge regarding the pendency of the civil suit and the order of interim injunction granted and that therefore the impugned order of the learned Trial Judge is legally unsustainable and hence the same is liable to be set aside.

6. The learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit only at the time of police enquiry, they came to know about the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.19 of 2018 and O.S.No.23 of 2019, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Devakottai and the subsequent transfer of the second suit to the file of Subordinate Court, Devakottai, that their father had purchased the suit property and adjoining properties situated in other survey numbers ad-measuring 40 acres on 24.10.2019, vide Document No.3626 of 2019, that the respondents 1 to 3 are necessary parties and that the learned Trial Court has rightly allowed the impleading petition.

7. It is not in dispute that the Trial Court in I.A.No.1 of 2019, has passed an o