ORDER

(The case has been heard through video conference)

This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed in I.A.No.736 of 2015 in O.S.No.85 of 2011, dated 25.01.2019, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamalle.

2.The plaintiffs 1 and 3 in the suit in O.S.No.85 of 2011 are the revision petitioners herein.

3.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the ranking before the Trial Court viz., plaintiffs, defendant and proposed parties.

4.The factual matrix of the case leading to filing of the above revision petition are as under:

(a)The suit property relates to S.No.91 of an extent 1.53 acres in Nerkundram Village, Madurvoyal Taluk, Thiruvallur District.

(b)The plaintiffs have filed the above said suit in O.S.No.85 of

2011, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee, to challenge the compromise decree passed in O.S.No. 137 of 2010, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee, dated 15.09.2010, alleging that the same has been obtained by fraud and hence, sought the declaration that the decree is null and void. (c)The plaintiffs claim to be the owners of the suit property and that they appointed the defendant as their power agent to take care of the suit property. But as the defendant did not submit the accounts and hand over the sale consideration of another property in S.No.92, the plaintiffs cancelled the power deed in favour of the defendant and executed a fresh power deed in favour of the 1st plaintiff.

(d)The defendant has filed suit in O.S.No.137 of 2010 challenging the cancellation of power deed. It is alleged that the 1st plaintiff as power agent of the other plaintiffs, without the consent of the other plaintiffs, had entered into compromise with the defendant by tampering the ages in the compromise.

(e)As per the pleading in the Interlocutory Application viz., I.A.No.736 of 2015, it averred that, at this stage the defendant entered into agreement of sale with the petitioner/proposed party in December 2012.

(f)Subsequent to the compromise, a dispute arose between the plaintiffs and the defendant and hence, the owners have filed the present suit in O.S.No. 85 of 2011 for the relief as stated supra. During the pendency of the above said suit in O.S.No. 85 of 2011, the first respondent herein as a third party has filed an application in I.A.No. 736 of 2015 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead him as second defendant in the main suit. After filing the counter and during the enquiry, on behalf of the respondents in the above said I.A.No.736 of 2015, Exs.R1 to R8 have been marked and no oral evidence or documentary evidence has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. The learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee, by an order dated 25.01.2019 had allowed the said I.A., and ordered the third proposed party/first respondent herein to be impleaded as a second defendant in the suit in O.S.No.85 of 2011. Hence, the CRP.

5.Heard Mr.Ragavachari, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, Mr.J.Srinivasa Mohan learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr.Mohana Murali, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

6.This revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the validity of the order made in I.A.No.736 of 2015 in O.S.No.85 of 2011 dated 25.01.2019 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Poonamalle in allowing the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the C.P.C., and thereby impleading the 1st respondent as a party defendant to the suit. 7.The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would contend that the proposed party is only an agreement holder from the general power of attorney and hence, he is not a necessary party to the suit, which has to declare a decree obtained in earlier suit in O.S.No.137 of 2010 as null and void.

8.Mr.J.Srinivasamohan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, has filed additional typed set of papers a