ORDER :

(Common Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the fair and decretal order, passed in E.A.No.87 of 2011, in E.P.No.18 of 2006 in O.S.No.198 of 1999, dated 16.04.2014 and passed in E.A.No.89 of 2011, in E.P.No.18 of 2006 in O.S.No.198 of 1999, dated 07.04.2014, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchendur.)

1. C.R.P.(MD)No.2029 of 2015 is filed against the order passed in I.A.No.87 of 2011 in E.P.No.18 of 2006 in O.S.No.198 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruchendur, dated 16.04.2014.

2. CRP(MD)No.2353 of 2015 is filed against the order passed in I.A.No.89 of 2011 in E.P.No.18 of 2006 in O.S.No.198 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruchendur.

3. The revision petitioners herein are third parties to the suit. One Tharmapitchai is the first plaintiff. The first revision respondent is the second plaintiff, One Kurusamy is the third plaintiff, the second respondent herein is the fourth plaintiff, one Pappuammal is the first defendant. Third and fourth respondents are the defendants 2 and 3. Tharmapitchai has filed a suit in O.S.No.198 of 1999 for specific performance against Pappuammal, Saravanamuthu (Third respondent herein) and Regunathan (Fourth respondent herein). The revision petitioners are the legal heirs of the third defendant.

4. The petitioners filed a petition in E.A.No.87 of 2011 for a prayer of impleading themselves in the Execution Proceedings. That petition was dismissed by the trial Court. The petitioners filed another petition to set aside the order passed against the third defendant in E.A.No. 89 of 2011. That petition was also dismissed by the trial Court. Against the same, the revision petitioners filed these Civil Revision Petitions.

5. Brief substance of petition in E.A.No.87 of 2011 is as follows:-

The plaintiffs had filed a suit against the defendants 1 to 3. The third defendant is the husband of the first petitioner, and the father of the petitioners 2 and 3 and he was missing for the past 12 years. Nobody heard of him sofar. An exparte decree was passed against the defendants. The proposed parties are the legal heirs of the third defendant and it is necessary that they have to be impleaded in the execution proceedings.

6. Brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent adopted by the fourth respondent, in E.A.No.87 of 2011, is as follows:-

The petition is not maintainable. It is wrong to state that the third defendant left the residence 12 years back. It is false to state that the petitioners are not aware of the exparte decree. The petitioners have no locus standi to be a party to the petition and prayed the petition to be dismissed.

7. Brief substance of petition in E.A.No.89 of 2011 is as follows:-

The respondents 1 to 4 are the plaintiffs in the suit and the petitioner in the Execution Proceedings. The respondents 5 to 7 are the defendants in the original suit. The seventh respondent is the husband of the first petitioner and father of the second and third petitioners. The seventh respondent / third defendant was missing for the past 12 years. Since the husband of the first petitioner was missing and since the petitioners 2 and 3 are small children, the first petitioner went to her father's house at Nanguneri. She came back to Tiruchendur, only recently and that the petitioners are residing in the suit property. On 26.06.2011, the first petitioner happened to see an advertisement in 'Malaimurasu' newspaper and came to know about the case. After consulting an Advocate, she came to know that a case for specific performance was filed against her husband and an exparte decree was passed on 10.11.2000. The husband of the first petitioner was missing for the past 12 years and hence, the petitioners are to be impleaded in the case. The petitioners have filed a petition to set aside the exparte decree. If the petition is not allowed, the petitioners will be put into irreparable loss and hardship.

8. Brief