ORDER

1. The revision petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.342 of 2002. The respondents herein are the defendants.

2. Originally, the first defendant/first respondent herein is the owner of the properties having an extent of 2 acres and 18 cents in various Survey Numbers at No.164, Pulikorabu Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpet District. She entered into an agreement for sale of the said properties with the first plaintiff, second defendant and one K.Ponnuswamy on 24.05.1982. Subsequently, on 02.08.1982, supplemental agreement has been entered into between the first defendant and the first plaintiff along with the second defendant, substituting the second plaintiff in the place of K.Ponnuswamy.

3. After the sale agreement, the plaintiffs/revision petitioners came to know that there was a tentative proposal by the Government to acquire an extent of 7 ½ cents and the first defendant/first respondent herein sold 30 cents out of 2 acres and 18 cents. Thereafter, the first defendant did not come forward to execute the sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.44 of 1986 before the Subordinate Court, Chengalpet, which was transferred to the file of the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee, for the relief of specific performance in respect of 1 acre 80 ½ cents. Since the second defendant/second respondent herein (deceased now) did not join with the plaintiffs for filing the suit, he was shown as the second defendant at the time of filing the suit. Pending the suit, the Government, by Notification dated 11.02.1987, acquired 55 cents instead of 7 ½ cents. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.1106 of 1991 in O.S.No.44 of 1986, seeking to amend the plaint, amending the extent of properties as 1 acre 33 cents instead of 1 acre 80 ½ cents, which was allowed by the trial Court on 14.12.1995. After allowing the said application, amended plaint was taken on file. Thereafter, on pecuniary jurisdiction, the suit was transferred to the District Munsif, Tambaram and the suit in O.S.No.44 of 1986 was renumbered as O.S.No.342 of 2002.

4. While so, the suit was dismissed for non-payment of batta in respect of the second respondent, vide Judgment and Decree dated 15.06.2005. In the mean time, second defendant, a joint agreement holder and one of the beneficiary to the agreement, was reported dead. Therefore, the plaintiffs/revision petitioners, contending that the second defendant remained ex parte during the pendency of the suit and the main relief sought for in the suit is against only the first defendant, filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.85 of 2013 in O.S.No.342 of 2002 under Order XXII Rule IV of C.P.C., seeking exemption from impleading the legal heirs of the deceased second respondent/second defendant in the application filed to condone the delay of 2459 days in filing the application to restore the suit, which was dismissed for default on 15.06.2005.

5. Resisting the same, the first defendant/first respondent herein filed a counter, contending that the second defendant died even during the pendency of the suit and the plaintiffs failed to bring the legal heirs on record and also did not take any steps to pay batta for issuance of summons to the second defendant, therefore, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court for default as against the second defendant. Further, the relief sought for in the suit by the plaintiffs as the beneficiary of the suit agreement and supplemental agreement and if any decree is passed, it would affect the interest of the legal heirs of the deceased second defendant and therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased second defendant are necessary parties to the suit.

6. Considering the rival submissions, the Interlocutory Application filed by the plaintiffs/revision petitioners herein seeking exemption from impleading the legal heirs of the deceased second defendant was dismissed as not maintainable and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the benefi