Pendente lite purchasers must seek leave under O.XXII R.10 CPC to continue suit, not implead via O.I R.10(2).

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order and decreetal order made in IA.No.732 of 2021 dated 23.10.2021 in O.S.No.206/2019 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court at Alandur.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.Jothi Senior Counsel For Mr.S.Vinod For Respondent(s): Mr. M. Thangadurai (For RR2, 4 and 5)

For R1 - Died For RR3, R6 and R7 – No appearance

ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order and decreetal order made in IA.No.732 of 2021 dated 23.10.2021 in O.S.No.206 of 2019 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court at Alandur.

2. Heard Mr.N.Jothi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.M.Thangadurai, learned counsel for respondents 2, 4 and 5.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that the respondents 1 to 3 had earlier instituted a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the petitioners and the 7^th respondent from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit property, and that pending the suit, they had sold the property to a third party from whom the respondents 4 and 5 claim to have purchased the suit property and had taken out an application to implead themselves in exercise of powers under Order I Rule

10(2) read with Section 151 CPC.

4. The learned Senior Counsel would vehemently contend that the said provision can only be invoked by a party to the suit and not by a third party, and that a perusal of the application would show that even though the plaintiffs have been shown as parties to the petition, the same had been only affirmed by a third party, which would indicate that the said application had been couched in such a manner to make it appear as if it had been maintained by a party to the suit.

5. The learned Senior Counsel would further rely upon a judgment of this Court in the case of M.Selvaraj Vs. Jayadevi Krishnasamy and others, reported in 2022 (5) MLJ 258, to contend that such an impleading application filed by a third party cannot be entertained and that at the most, they could only be added as defendants. He would further submit that the respondents 4 and 5, being pendente lite purchasers, cannot be impleaded as party plaintiffs. He would submit that the trial Court, without considering all these facts, in a casual manner and merely considering that the written statement was yet to be filed, had held that it was necessary to implead the proposed parties, only then all necessary documents would be available before the Court for adjudication of the issue. He would further submit that such an order, without assigning any reasons as to the rights of the parties, is liable to be interfered with by this Court. Hence, he seeks this Court to set aside the order of impleadment made in this revision petition.

6. Countering his arguments, Mr.M.Thangadurai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2, 4 and 5 would submit that the 4^th and 5^th respondents have stepped into the shoes of the respondents 1 to 3, who are the plaintiffs, as they had sold the property to a third party from whom the fourth and fifth respondents have purchased the same. They have also mutated the revenue records in their names and obtained licence for putting up an industry in the said place. Hence, it became necessary for them to be impleaded as party plaintiffs to the suit to protect their right and possession over the property. 7. He would submit that th