P RATHINASAMY Vs. A MARUTHACHALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been brought forth by the petitioners, seeking to add them as parties in S.A.No.545 of 1993 on the file of this Court.

(2.) IT was a suit for partition, which was agitated till this Court between the father and the son in S.A.No.545 of 1993. Originally, there was a decree passed by this Court on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties. Subsequently, there was an application filed for modification in the compromise decree passed on 22.7.2005. At that time, it was brought to the notice of the court that a sum of Rs.14,59,465/- is in the hands of the power holder of defendants 3 to 6 and 9 which has got to be deposited in Court to the credit of O.S.No.2152 of 1981 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore and only when such a clause to that effect is added, the said sum could be deposited in court thereby enabling the parties to work out their remedies which was understood between them under the compromise decree. Accordingly, it was ordered.

(3.) AFTER hearing the submissions made, the Court is of the considered opinion that this petition requires an order of dismissal. It was a suit for partition, which was agitated till this Court in S.A.No.545 of 1993 and a compromise decree has been passed and it was also recorded. At this juncture, after the proceedings were over long back, the instant petition has been brought forth. This petition has got to be dismissed on two grounds. Firstly, no proceedings is pending in this Court. It is a condition precedent for making the petition like this and allowing to add them as parties to the pending proceedings. Thus, no proceedings is pending in this Court and hence, the petition cannot be maintained. Secondly, paragraph 5 of the affidavit reads as follows: "5. The petitioners herein are the alienees of portions of the suit properties, divided by the second respondent herein into several plots, and unknowing of the litigations taken out by the first respondent as against the second respondent, the same were purchased either by the petitioners or their predecessors in title, from whom some of the petitioners purchased the properties." The averments made in the affidavit are so bald. Apart from that, on the basis of which, no question of making them as parties to the pending proceedings would arise. Under these circumstances, the petition deserves an order of dismissal. Accordingly, it is dismissed.