ORDER :

S.S. Sundar, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 13.04.2015 made in IA. No. 689/2006 in OS. No. 300/1974 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore.

2. Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition are as follows.

3. The revision petitioners claim that they are the legal heirs of the 2nd defendant in the suit in OS. No. 300/1974. It is stated that the 1st petitioner is the wife and petitioners 2 and 3 are the sons of the late Velayutham Chettiar. It is admitted that one Dhandapani Chettiar filed a suit for partition for his share in the suit property in OS. No. 300/1974 before the Sub Court, Cuddalore. The dismissal of the suit by the Court below was confirmed by this Court in the First Appeal and in the Letters Patent Appeal. It is also admitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had reversed the judgment and decree of the Lower Court and held that the plaintiff and Dhandapani Chettiar and defendants 2 to 9 are the only legal heirs of Rajathiammal entitled to succeed to the properties of Rajathiammal.

4. Unfortunately, during the pendency of the appeal before the Apex Court, it is stated that late Velayudam Chettiar died on 09.06.1997. The appellant also did not take any steps to implead the legal heirs of the said Velayudam Chettiar. However, the revision petitioners herein, filed an application in IA. No. 689/2006 in OS. No. 300/1974 to implead themselves as defendants in the suit in the capacity of legal representatives of the deceased 2nd defendant-Velayudam Chettiar for proper adjudication. The said application was resisted by some of the parties to the suit on the ground that they cannot get a preliminary decree after the period of limitation.

5. The contesting respondent in this revision petition, namely 18th respondent, was arrayed as the 26th respondent in the Interlocutory Application before the Lower Court. He filed a counter affidavit, intrinsically admitting the revision petitioners herein as the legal representatives of the deceased Velayudam Chettiar. It is contended by the 18th respondent herein that in a suit for partition, the defendants are bound to pay Court fee in order to obtain a preliminary decree in their favour and therefore, there should be a prayer. Since the revision petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased/2nd defendant under whom they derive title, failed to seek a preliminary decree by paying the Court fee, it is stated that the petitioners cannot get a preliminary decree. The 18th respondent herein further contended that the impleading application is barred by principle of res judicata and therefore, the revision petitioners are not entitled to get themselves impleaded.

6. A reading of the counter affidavit also indicate that the 18th respondent herein treated the Interlocutory Application as one filed by the petitioners herein for passing of final decree rather than an application to get themselves impleaded as parties to the suit. It is also contended by the 18th respondent herein/26th respondent in the Application that the petitioners' application even if it is treated as one for passing of a preliminary decree, the application being filed beyond 12 years, is hopelessly barred by limitation. It is further stated that the 18th respondent herein has prescribed title by adverse possession against all parties and that the rights of the petitioners herein had been extinguished by lapse of time.

7. The Lower Court however dismissed the application on the ground that the revision petitioners herein have not proved themselves to be the legal representatives of the deceased Velayudam Chettiar. Since some of the respondents denied the status of the 1st petitioner herein as the wife of Velayudam Chettiar and contended that the 1st petitioner herein was just living with Velayudam Chettiar, it appears that they have also objected for impleading the revision petitioners herein in the suit. The Trial Cou