C O M M O N O R D E R

(The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid Mode”.)

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the fair and final orders dated 13.02.2015 passed in I.A.Nos.285 to 287 of 2014 in O.S.No.384 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Bhavani, Erode District.

2.The issues involved in all the Civil Revision Petitions are interlinked and hence, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of by this common order. The parties are referred to as per their rank in C.R.P.(PD).No.1022 of

2016, for the sake of convenience.

3.The petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.384 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Bhavani, Erode District. The 2nd respondent, who is the plaintiff herein filed the said suit against the petitioners for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with the 2nd respondent's usage of pathway and for mandatory injunction to remove the wall constructed by the petitioners. The petitioners filed written statement and are contesting the suit. Trial commenced. Both the 2nd respondent and petitioners let in their evidence and closed their side. The petitioners counsel argued the matter and also filed written arguments. The petitioners filed additional written statement on 31.03.2011. At that stage, the 2nd respondent filed three applications in I.A.Nos.285 to 287 of 2014 to re-open the case, for amendment to include the relief of declaration and to implead one Ramasamy as 5th defendant in the said suit.

4.According to 2nd respondent, in the suit filed by him, Advocate Commissioner was appointed on the application filed by the petitioners. The Advocate Commissioner inspected the suit property and filed a report stating that suit pathway of two feet situated in Survey No.507/7 belongs to petitioners and two feet situated in Survey No.507/2 belongs to one Ramasamy, S/o. Muthuraman @ Kuppu. The petitioners filed I.A.No.252 of 2014 to frame additional issue that suit without relief of declaration is not maintainable. The said I.A.No.252 of 2014 was allowed and additional issue was framed on 21.07.2014. The petitioners in the written arguments also prayed for dismissal of the suit for not impleading the said Ramasamy, S/o. Muthurman @ Kuppu and suit filed not seeking the relief of declaration. In view of the same, the suit has to be re-opened for amendment of plaint to include the relief of declaration and to implead the said Ramasamy, owner of Survey No.507/2.

5.The petitioners filed counter affidavit and denied all the averments stated in the affidavit and submitted that in the written statement filed on 25.09.2009 itself, it has been stated that suit is not maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration and for not impleading the said Ramasamy, the owner of Survey No.507/2. After commencement of Trial, even during cross examination of 2nd respondent on 07.03.2011, specific questions were put to 2nd respondent that without seeking the relief of declaration and impleading necessary parties, the suit is not maintainable. The Advocate Commissioner inspected the property on 06.06.2010 and filed his report on 10.08.2010. The 2nd respondent has filed the present applications after four years and three months of report of the Advocate Commissioner. When the suit was posted for arguments, the petitioners argued the matter and filed written arguments on 08.10.2014. The 2nd respondent took three adjournments on 13.10.2014, 17.10.2014 and 28.10.2014. After arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent took number of adjournments for arguing on behalf of the 2nd respondent. After taking adjournments, at a belated stage, the 2nd respondent has filed the present three applications for re-opening, for amendment and for impleading the said Ramasamy as 5th defendant, which are not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of all the three applications.

6.The learned Judge considering the averments in the affidavit, counter affid