S. VAIRAMOORTHY Vs. P. RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE arguments advanced by Mr.R.Sagadevan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, by Mr.G.Pugazhenthi, learned counsel for the first respondent and by Mr.P.Nagaraju, learned counsel for the second respondent are heard. The materials produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused.

(2.) THE first respondent in the revision filed a suit as O.S.No. 80/2003 on the file of Sub Court, Chidambaram against the second respondent for the relief of specific performance based on an agreement for sale dated 30.04.1991 allegedly executed by Natesan Pillai, the father of the second respondent. The said suit was later on transferred to the court of Additional District Munsif, Chidambaram and re -numbered as O.S.No. 124/2009. When the suit stood listed for trial, the first respondent herein/plaintiff failed to appear and the same came to be dismissed for default on 05.01.2004. Subsequently, the first respondent/plaintiff filed I.A.No. 331/2008 for the restoration of the said suit. The sole respondent in the said application, namely the second respondent herein made an endorsement stating No Objection for allowing the said petition. Before the said petition came to be disposed of, the revision petitioners, who were not parties to the suit, filed I.A.No. 332/2008 for getting them impleaded as respondents in I.A.No. 331/2008 in the above said suit.

(3.) AS against the said order, no revision was filed initially. The petitioners, after the restoration of the suit, filed I.A.No. 381/2009 for getting them impleaded as defendants in the above said suit. The said application came to be dismissed by the trial court by order dated 28.06.2011. The said order was challenged before this court in C.R.P.(PD) No. 5116/2011. This court, by order dated 22.12.2011, dismissed the said civil revision petition, with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the order dated 30.12.2008 made in I.A.No. 332/2008, if so advised. Hence the petitioners have come forward with the present revision challenging the said order dated 30.12.2008 made in I.A.No. 332/2008.