O R D E R

The civil revision is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.250 of 2019 in O.S.No. 67 of 2019 dated 23.02.2021 on the file of the Principal District Court, Dindigul, dismissing the petition filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC.

2. When the above matter was moved for admission on

19.07.2021, I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned counsel for caveator / respondents 1 and 2.

3. When this Court is about to dictate the orders, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that he has to submit the citations in response to the contentions raised by the caveator and sought further time and hence, the matter stands adjourned to today under the caption for orders. Today, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has neither submitted any citations nor turned up.

4. The revision petitioner is a third party and the respondents

1 and 2 have filed the above suit in O.S.No.67 of 2019 against the third respondent claiming the relief of specific performance of agreement dated 27.12.2017 and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from in any way creating encumbrances or alienating the suit properties. Pending suit, the revision petitioner / 3rd party claiming to be the owner of the suit property has filed the petition under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC to implead herself as the second defendant in the above suit. The learned District Judge, after enquiry, has passed the impugned order on 23.02.2021 dismissing the said petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the proposed party has come forward with the present revision. 5. The case of the revision petitioner is that the suit properties and other properties were originally owned by her grand father Muthu Ramalingam, that after his death his two sons Maruthamuthu, father of proposed party and Nagarathinam, son of the third respondent have become the owners of the suit property, that both of them have subsequently partitioned the properties orally and the properties situated at Palani Taluk were allotted to the share of Nagarathinam and the properties available in Natham Taluk including the suit property were allotted to the petitioner's father, that after the death of petitioner's father Maruthamuthu her mother became owner and she was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, that the petitioner's mother Sarathambal had executed a gift settlement deed on 09.08.2007 settling the suit property in favour of the revision petitioner and that the petitioner alone is the owner and in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is further case of the revision petitioner that the third respondent by suppressing the oral partition effected between his father and petitioner's father has filed the suit in O.S.No.27 of 2011 for partition and the suit was decreed in his favour, that the petitioner has preferred the appeal and the same is pending on the file of the Principal District Court, Dindigul, that the third respondent by suppressing the above has entered into a sale agreement with the respondents 1 and 2 with an intention to grab the suit properties and that since the respondents colluded together and attempting to cheat the petitioner and hence, she was constrained to file the above petition to implead herself as a defendant in the suit. The third respondent has taken a stand that the settlement deed alleged to have been executed by the petitioner's mother is not binding on him, that the proposed party is not a necessary party and that therefore, the impleading petition is liable to be dismissed. The respondents 1 and 2 / plaintiffs have also taken a similar stand that the proposed party is a total stranger and there is no need or necessity to implead her as a party in the suit, that the petitioner is not at all necessary party nor a proper party and that the above petition has been filed abusing the process of the Court.

6. Admittedly, the respondents 1 and 2 / plaintiffs have entered into a sale agreement with the