ORDER :

1. CRP.No.3185 of 2024 has been filed, challenging the order in I.A.No.386 of 2022 in O.S.No.30 of 2005 dated 03.07.2024 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palladam, in and by which the amendment application taken out by the plaintiffs came to be dismissed by the Trial Court. Insofar as CRP.No.4585 of 2024, the said revision petition has been filed, challenging the order in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in O.S.No.30 of 2005 dated 13.08.2024 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palladam, allowing an application for impleadment of proposed defendants in the suit.

2. I have heard Mr.S.R.Raghunathan, learned counsel for Mr.V.Anandamurthy, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRP.No.3185 of 2024, Mr.T.Murugamanickam, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRP.No.4585 of 2024 as well as the respondents in CRP.No.3185 of 2024 and Mr.Saran Prasad, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent in CRP.No.4585 of 2024.

3. Mr.S.R.Raghunathan, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRP.No.3185 of 2024 would state that the amendment that was sought for was innocuous and only in the nature of an alternate relief to include a relief for partition in the event of the Will being disbelieved by the Trial Court. He would further invite my attention to the fact that the suit was originally decreed in respect of Schedule 'A' property and dismissed insofar as Schedule 'B' property. However, the First Appellate Court remanded the matter to the Trial Court. He would further state that the Will has also been produced in land ceiling proceedings and at the time of adjudicating the issues, considering the oral and documentary evidence, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the Will is not genuine and true or for other reasons, the Will cannot be acted upon, then being the only other legal heir, the plaintiff, would certainly be entitled to at least half share in the property.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further state that the plea taken by the 1^st defendant in the written statement is one of ouster and therefore, he would contend that in the event of the 1^st defendant also failing to prove his plea of ouster, then the suit cannot be left hanging in balance and only for such reasons, the plaintiff' has chosen to seek amendment of the plaint to include an alternate prayer. The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu Vs. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) and Others,  2024 SCC Online SC 2615, in support of his contentions.

5. Mr.T.Murugamanickam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in CRP.No.4585 of 2024 as well as the respondents in CRP.No.3185 of 2024 would state that it is not the case where trial had merely commenced but in fact, there being remand post appeal, the amendment is clearly one which is falling under the category of post trial amendment and further, drawing my attention to the filing of the suit in the year 1986, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that there are absolutely no bonafides on the part of the petitioner to seek an amendment of the plaint. He would therefore state that the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application and the same does not require any interference in this revision, that too under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

6. Insofar as CRP.No.4585 of 2024, the 1^st respondent in the revision filed an application in I.A.No.3 of 2023 seeking his impleadment in the said suit. The learned Senior Counsel would state that though the plaintiffs did not oppose the impleadment and the revision petitioners, who being defendants 2 to 4, have strongly opposed the application. The learned Senior Counsel would state that the Trial Court has erroneously proceeded to find that the proposed 1^st respondent was a necessary party. He would also invite my attention to the impugned order, where no documents have been filed in support of the claim made by the 1^st respondent i