JUDGMENT

Plaintiff is the petitioner. He filed an application to implead two persons as additional defendants 2 and 3. That application was opposed by the first defendant. The learned Munsiff passed Ext.P3 order disallowing the prayer. Hence, this petition is filed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the persons who are stated to be impleaded are the persons who started to occupy the plaint schedule building after the suit and they were inducted by the first defendant. So, if they are not arrayed as parties, the petitioner/plaintiff may not be in a position to execute the decree effectively.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the prayer made in the plaint shows that the plaintiff is in possession of the shop room whereas it was in the O.P.(C). No.3252/2013 possession of other persons. That is a matter to be agitated in the suit.

4. When the order/decree of injunction is passed, it will be binding not only against the defendant but also against his men and agents and persons claiming under the defendant. The other persons who allegedly trespassed into the property subsequent to the date of the suit, are according to the plaintiff persons claiming