SARATHAMANI Vs. CHELLAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the respondents 5 to 18 were served and the names of the respondents 5 to 18 appeared in the cause list, they have not chosen to appear before this Court either in person or through a counsel and hence, the matter is taken up for final disposal. The plaintiffs are the revision petitioners. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition against 20 defendants and according to the plaintiffs, the partition is sought for in respect of the properties belonging to the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 4. The defendants 5 to 20 are impleaded on the ground that they are the co-pattadhars and they are only the formal parties. The defendants 10 and 12 have died and both of them were already set ex parte and therefore, the revision petitioners/plaintiffs filed application under Order 22 Rule 4 seeking exemption from the Court to bring on record the legal representatives and that application was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, this Civil Revision Petition is filed.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, Mr. N. Manokaran submitted that the Court below without properly appreciating the scope of Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC and the judgments rendered by this Court and

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 submitted that the Court below has got discretion to grant permission and exemption and the Court below exercised its discretion and refused to grant exemption sought for by the petitioners and therefore that order cannot be challenged in this revision.