C O M M O N O R D E R

These civil revision petitions are filed by the 7th defendant in a suit for partition. Pending suit, an application in I.A.No.160 of 2013 was filed by the 7th defendant, seeking to implead the plaintiff/1st respondent's wife, Sivakamasundari as the 27th defendant in the suit and he has also filed another application in I.A.No.161 of 2013 seeking to include the house property standing in the name of the plaintiff/1st respondent's wife to the plaint schedule. Aggrieved over the dismissal order passed in both the I.As, these Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the 7th defendant.

2. The plaintiff was employed as a lecturer in the Annamalai University and later, he became as Professor and out of his income and the sale proceeds of his wife's jewels, he purchased a house in the name of his wife in Mariappan Nagar, Chidambaram. According to him, the said property is not a joint family property and it exclusively belongs to his wife. All these averments have been stated in the plaint itself. After service of summons, the defendants, neither claimed the share in the property of the plaintiff nor made any claim before any Court of law. After nine years from the filing of the suit, the 7th defendant had filed these two applications viz.,I.A.Nos.160 and 161 of 2013, seeking to implead the 1st respondent's wife, Sivakamasundari as party defendant in the suit and to include the house property standing in the name of the 1st respondent's wife to the plaint schedule respectively stating that the said property is also a joint family property and it should be included for partition in the suit.

3. The learned Subordinate Judge, on considering the submissions made on both sides, dismissed both the applications. Hence, these civil revision petitions before this Court.

4. Originally, when the Civil Revision Petitions came up for hearing on 08.03.2019, it was dismissed as infructuous, since the revision petitioner did not comply with the condition imposed while setting aside the exparte order before the trial Court and liberty was granted to the revision petitioner to revive it after the exparte decree is set aside. Now, the petitioner has complied with the condition and the exparte decree was set aside, thereby the civil revision petitions are also restored to file. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the suit is not maintainable on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties, as the property sought to be included by way of amendment, was purchased from and out of joint family income and hence, the same ought to have been included in the suit. Learned counsel would further that there is no impediment for inclusion of the property mentioned in I.A. 161 of 2013 and there is also no impediment for impleading the plaintiff/1st respondent's wife in the suit. He would further submit that the trial has just commenced and the petition for amendment and impleading ought to be allowed, failing which, the parties will be deprived of their opportunity to defend their case. He would further submit that the facts stated in the above applications were already raised as a defence in the written statement and hence, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff/1st respondent herein if the applications are allowed. Hence, he would pray that these civil revision petitions may be allowed.

6. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/

1st respondent would submit that the property mentioned in the I.A.No.161/2013 does not belong to the joint family property and moreover, the suit was filed in the year 2004 and the revision petitioner/7th defendant filed I.A.No.161 of 2013 after nine years of the filing of the suit and that too, at part heard stage. Learned counsel would further submit that the only remedy available to the revision petitioner/7th defendant is to file a separate suit for partition by including the said property and hence, prays for dismissal of the above revisions.

7. Heard the lea