(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order and decretal order dated 07. 06. 2004 made in I. A. No. 255 of 2003 in A. S. No. 28 of 2003 on the file of Sub Court, Chidambaram.
(2.) THE respondents 6 and 7 in I. A. No. 255 of 2003 in A. S. No. 28 of 2003 are the revision petitioners. The first respondent herein filed the suit in O. S. No. 99 of 2000 against the respondents 2 to 6 herein and also against the revision petitioners herein for a judgment and decree, declaring that the suit schedule properties are owned by him and also for recovery of possession. The revision petitioners resisted the suit by filing a written statement wherein, it was specifically averred that the seventh respondent in this revision petition should have been added as a necessary party and the suit should be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties, i. e. , the seventh respondent herein. The Trial Court framed a specific issue as to whether the suit is bad for non joinder of the seventh respondent herein and by Judgment dated 30. 01. 2003 held, that the suit is bad for not adding the seventh respondent herein as a party in the suit and dismissed the suit. Thus the suit itself was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff did not add the 7th respondent herein as a party in the suit who is a necessary party.
(3.) AGAINST the dismissal of the suit, the first respondent herein filed A. S. No. 28 of 2003. In I. A. No. 255 of 2003 filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of C. P. C. , the first respondent herein who is the appellant before the lower Appellate Court, has prayed to add the seventh respondent herein as a party in the appeal proceedings. The lower Appellate Court by an order dated 07. 06. 2004 allowed the said I. A. No. 255 of 2003 and directed the first respondent herein to implead the seventh respondent herein as a necessary party to the appeal proceedings. Aggrieved against the said order dated 7. 6. 2004, the above Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.