N RAJIV NAIDU Vs. R SANTHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition has been filed against the order, dated 1.2.2010, made in I.A.No.20445 of 2009, in O.S.No.8011 of 2007, on the file of the XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

(2.) The petitioner in the present civil revision petition is the 6th defendant in the suit, in O.S.No.8011 of 2007. The first and the second respondents had filed the suit, in O.S.No.8011 of 2007, on the file of the XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, praying for a decree, to declare the decree in O.S.No.39 of 1996, dated 19.9.1999, on the file of the I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, as illegal, void and non est in law and for a permanent injunction restraining the third defendant from claiming the property in question, as the son of the first defendant and for a mandatory injunction to direct the fifth defendant to correct the entry of the father"s name and the initial of the third defendant in his passport and to correct the same as `Son of B.Narendran".

(3.) It has been stated that the suit, in O.S.No.8011 of 2007, has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2, as the plaintiffs in the suit, seeking the declaration of the decree passed by the I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in O.S.No.39 of 1996, as null and void. The Regional Pass Port Officer, Chennai, had also been shown as one of the defendants in the suit. During the pendency of the proceedings in the suit, the fourth defendant i.e. B.Narendran, the father of the petitioner had passed away, on 7.4.2008. Several months after the death of the petitioner"s father, the respondents 1 and 2 had taken out an application, in I.A.No.13165 of 2008, to implead the petitioner, as a legal heir of the deceased fourth defendant. The petitioner had been served with the notice and he had filed a counter denying some of the allegations made against him. However, he had no objection for being impleaded. All of a sudden, the first and the second respondents had filed a memo, through their counsel, withdrawing the application, in I.A.No.13165 of 2008. The trial Court had allowed the withdrawal of the application.