LILLY AND ORS. Vs. THAMIMUL ANSARI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal representatives of defendants 3 and 4 in the suit have projected the instant Civil Revision Petition seeking to set aside the order dated 27.01.2015 passed by the District Judge, Karaikal, in I.A. No. 3 of 2014 in I.A. No. 159 of 2008 in O.S. No. 20 of 2000 wherein and by which the application moved by first respondent herein under Section 151 C.P.C. to reopen the case, which is posted for arguments, for the purpose of letting oral evidence, was allowed. From the materials available on record, it is seen that suit O.S. No. 20 of 2000 was filed for partition of 1/4th share of the plaintiffs and a counter claim was also filed by the third defendant. The learned Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal, passed a preliminary decree on 07.6.2007 declaring that the third defendant is entitled to 3/6 shares on the suit scheduled properties and ordered partition thereof by metes and bounds. Subsequently, the present petitioners filed I.A. No. 159 of 2008 for passing a final decree allotment of the divided portions and separate possession. In the meanwhile, one Tamimul Ansari, who is a third party, filed I.A. No. 218 of 2011 in I.A. No. 159 of 2008 under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C. to get himself impleaded claiming that he purchased the property from one Ossanna and plaintiffs 1 and 2 on 11.4.2003 for a valuable consideration. The learned District Judge, on consideration of the materials available on record, finding that the petitioner therein, who claims to have purchased the property, is a necessary party to decide the issue, allowed the application by order dated 21.09.2011 impleading him as seventh respondent in I.A. No. 159 of 2009.

(2.) The newly impleaded seventh respondent in I.A. No. 159 of 2008/the first respondent herein, filed I.A. No. 3 of 2014 before the Additional District Judge, Karaikal, seeking to reopen the case which is posted for advancing arguments for the purpose of letting in oral evidence. The said application was resisted by the legal representatives of defendants 3 and 4 contending that the claim of the first respondent herein that he is not the party to the preliminary decree, is not legally sustainable. The learned District Judge, by order dated 27.01.2015, allowed the said application permitting the petitioner therein to adduce oral evidence on his side. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the present Revision Petition has been focused by the legal representatives of the defendants 3 and 4.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and the learned counsel for the first respondent and perused the records.