S KRISHNAN Vs. RATHINAVEL NAICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH the miscellaneous petitions were posted for hearing, the main revision petition itself was taken up by consent of both parties, in view of the limited scope of the dispute involved in the C.R.P.

(2.) THE civil revision petition arises out of an order passed on 31-8-2004 in I.A.No.426 of 2003 in A.S.No.17 of 2001 on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court II) Kancheepuram, allowing a petition filed under Order I, Rule 10(2), C.P.C., for impleading the respondents 5 to 23 as respondents in the first appeal.

(3.) AT the time when the appeal was ripe for hearing, the 1st respondent herein filed I.A.No.426 of 2003 for impleading the respondents 5 to 23 as party respondents in the main appeal, on the ground (i) that the original owner of the suit schedule property Mr. Krishnamachary (from whom he claims to have purchased the property under oral sales) left behind 3 sons (ii) that the 2nd respondent (from whom the petitioner claims to have purchased the property under a registered sale deed) is the wife of one of the sons of Krishnamachary (iii) that the proposed parties 5 to 23 are the legal heirs of the other 2 sons of Krishnamachary and (iv) that their presence is necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties.