C O M M O N O R D E R

Challenging the impugned orders passed in I.A.Nos.171 & 172 of

2019 in O.S.No. 06 of 2008 on the file of learned District Munsif, Arakkonam, Vellore District, the revision petitioners/plaintiffs preferred these Civil Revision Petitions.

2. Since the relief claimed challenging the impugned orders passed by the trial judge, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.

3. Before the trial court, the Revision Petitioners filed two Interlocutary Applications, in which I.A.No.171 of 2019 was filed seeking to amend the preliminary decree and another application in I.A.No.172 of 2019 was filed seeking to amend schedule property of plaint. The reasons assigned by the Revision Petitioners is that the 2nd petitioner and his father Ranganathan filed a suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties. In that suit, a preliminary decree was passed on 19.11.2009. In pursuance of the preliminary decree, the 2nd petitioner and other legal heirs of 2nd petitioner's father, the 1st plaintiff in the suit and legal heirs of Prabakaran, the brother of 2nd petitioner, who is another son of Ranganathan have filed an application under Order 26 Rule 13 of C.P.C. in I.A.No.26 of 2011 fo