MUTHUSAMY Vs. PERUMAL GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioners who are proposed parties in the implead petition in I.A.No.338 of 2005, filed this revision petition against the order and decreetal order of I Additional District Munsif Court, Namakkal, in O.S.No.16 of 2003 dated 26.07.2005.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for revision petitioners and the respondents 1 to 4.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that admittedly, at the time of filing the suit, the revision petitioners have not disturbed the possession, but during the pendency of the suit, they are attempted to interfere with the possession and therefore, to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, the revision petitioners are necessary parties in the suit. The learned counsel further pointed out that the relevant portion in CPC (i.e.,) Order 1 Rule 10 Sub -rule (2) and submitted that the revision petitioners are entitled to implead the proposed parties as defendants in the suit itself, in order to enable the Court to settle all the questions involved in this suit. The relevant provisions in Order 1 Rule 10 Sub -rule (2) reads as under: -