O R D E R

This Civil Revision is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.234 of

2016 in O.S.No.19 of 1996, dated 05.09.2019 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam, dismissing the petition filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2.The revision petitioner is a third party. The respondents 1 and

2\plaintiffs have filed the above suit for partition and allotment of 1\2 share in the suit properties and for rendition of accounts by the 6th defendant for the income derived from the coconut thope. After trial, preliminary decree was passed on 08.07.2003. Aggrieved by the preliminary decree, the 6th defendant has preferred an appeal in A.S.No.336 of 2004 before this Court. Pending appeal, the parties have entered into compromise and on the basis of the said compromise, the decree passed by the trial Court was modified vide judgment dated 21.01.2014. It is not in dispute that meanwhile, the plaintiffs have filed a petition for passing of final decree in I.A.No.2 of 2005 and the same is pending. Pending final decree petition, the revision petitioner\third party has filed the petition in I.A.No.234 of 2016 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, seeking orders to implead him as 7th defendant in the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge, after enquiry, has passed the impugned order on 05.09.2019, dismissing the said petition. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the third party has come forward with the present revision.

3.Admittedly, the suit properties were owned by one Ameena Beevi. The relationship not in dispute are that Ameena Beevi had married one Abdul Karim and had a son by name Pasala kamal Batcha and he married Davood Ammal and that the revision petitioner\third party Abdul Khadar is the son of the said Pasala Kamal Batcha and Dawood Ammal. After the death of the said Abdul Karim, Ameena Beevi had married Abdul Karim's brother sheik Dawood and had three children by name Jannath Gani, Noor Jahan (plaintiffs 1 and 2 ) and Sulthan Batcha, that Sulthan Batcha died living behind his widow Jamrath Begam\the first defendant and four children, the defendants 2 to 5.

4. The case of the revision petitioner\third party is that the proposed party being the grand son of original owner Ameena Beevi, is also entitled to get a share in the property of Ameena Beevi as he was alive on the date of the death of the said Ameena Beevi, that the proposed party is entitled to get 1\9 share in the suit properties and that therefore, the proposed party is a proper and necessary party to be implead in the above suit proceedings.

5.The defence of the respondents is that the father of the proposed party Pasala Kamal Batcha had predeceased his mother Ameena Beevi, that Ameena Beevi had died in 1991 leaving behind her three children\the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the deceased Kamal Batcha as her legal heirs to succeed her properties and that the proposed party and his mother, who are the legal heirs of the predeceased son are not entitled to inherit the property of Ameena Beevi. 6. It is their further contention that the proposed party is a local resident and aware of the proceedings pending between the parties and that is why, he did not implead him in the suit proceedings and that therefore, he cannot be allowed to get himself impleaded in the final decree proceedings. It is the further contention of the respondents that the proposed party has already filed a suit in O.S.No.174 of 2016, against the respondents herein on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam, claiming the relief of declaration that the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.19 of 1996, dated 08.07.2003 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam, is not valid and is unexecutable and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from alienating or encumbering the properties using the decree passed in O.S.No.19 of 1996 and that the said suit is pending.

7.It is also not in dispute that the first plaintiff by alleging that the revision