ORDER :

The third defendant is the revision petitioner herein.

2. Initially the petitioner's father filed the suit against the 6th respondent for Permanent Injunction restraining him from interference of his father's peaceful possession and his enjoyment of the suit property. Pending the suit, the 6th respondent sold the suit property to the 7th respondent, therefore, the petitioner's father filed a petition for amendment of suit prayer to declare the said sale deed as null and void and the same was dismissed. Against dismissal of the Interlocutory Application, a Civil Revision Petition was filed before Hon'ble High Court of Madras in C.R.P.No.1563 of 2017. While pending the civil revision petition, the petitioner's father died on 01.11.2017 leaving the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 5 as his legal heirs. When such being so, the above said civil revision petition was dismissed by its order dated 10.12.2019 with direction to the trial Court to dispose of the same within three months.

3. In the meantime, the respondents 1 to 5 filed an application in I.A.No.1373 of 2018 in the above suit to implead them as the plaintiffs, since there is no cordial relationship between the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 5, they made the petitioner as the 3rd defendant in the above suit. The suit was uncontested as the respondents 1 to 5 colluded with the respondents 6 and 7. Taking into consideration of the above fact, the petitioner filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.4 of 2019 under Order XXIII Rule 1-A of C.P.C to transpose the petitioner as the plaintiff from the 3rd defendant to contest the suit effectively.

4. In the said Interlocutory Application, the respondents 1 to 5 and the respondents 6&7 filed their counter, wherein, they categorically admitted that there is no cordial relationship between the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 5. That apart, to strengthen the apprehension of the petitioner, the respondents 6&7 marked a forged and fabricated document as if the petitioner has received a consideration amount and signed in the document. The said averment is not only made by the respondents 6&7 but also by the respondents 1 to 5. That apart, from perusal of the entire averments of the counter filed by the respondents 1 to 5, it strengthen the case of the respondents 6 & 7 (defendants 1&2). But the trial Court has dismissed the transpose application of the petitioner in I.A.No.4 of 2019 in O.S.No.9368 of 2009 on the file of the XV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai in its order dated 12.10.2010. If the respondents 1 to 5 are permitted to conduct the suit, they cannot be expected to protect the petitioner's interest.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the death of his father, mother and sisters are not conducting the case properly and wantonly they are impleaded themselves as a plaintiff L.R original plaintiff and impleaded him as a third defendant in the suit and now they have abandoned case and not conducting the case which will affect his right being a L.R of the deceased original plaintiff- A.Chandraskekaran. Accordingly, he filed the said application to dispose him from the defendant rank to the plaintiff and the same was rejected and hence prayed for setting aside the order.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent/purchaser could contend that originally a suit was filed for bare injunction. Subsequently it was amended as one for declaration of title and for Permanent Injunction. Pending suit the original plaintiff Chandrasekaran died. Subsequently, he was on record and there was a settlement and the plaintiffs have appeared to withdraw the case and however after receiving the amount of settlement the son of the deceased plaintiff is now demanding more amount leading to litigation.

7. It is seen from the records that during the enquiry in I.A.No.4/2019, the mother of the petitioner herein filed a document Exhibit R1 whereby they have entered into a compromise. The said contesting respond