S SELVARAJ Vs. NAGAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred by the revision petitioner/tenant. C. R. P (NPD) No. 1027 of 2008 has been preferred against the order, dated 20. 12. 2007 made in E. A. No. 296 of 2007 in E. P. No. 46 of 2006 in R. C. O. P. No. 36 of 1995 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore to implead the second respondent as a necessary party in the E. P. CRP (NPD) No. 1028 of 2008 has been preferred against the order, dated 20. 12. 2007 made in E. A. No. 294 of 2007 in E. A. No. 347 of 2006 in the aforesaid RCOP on the file of the said Court to implead the second respondent in E. A. No. 347 of 2006. CRP (NPD) No. 1029 of 2008 has been preferred against the order, dated 20. 12. 2007 made in E. A. No. 295 of 2007 in E. A. No. 348 of 2006 in the aforesaid RCOP on the file of the said Court to implead the second respondent in E. A. No. 348 of 2006, which was filed for break open the lock for effecting delivery of possession.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the court below has allowed all the Execution Applications to implead the second respondent herein as proposed respondent, based on the settlement deed executed by the first respondent / decree holder in favour of her son, the second respondent herein.

(3.) MR. L. Mouli, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/tenant contended that the application itself is not maintainable, since the petitioner has filed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead the second respondent herein, as second petitioner in E. A. No. 347 of 2006. According to the learned counsel, the said provision is applicable only for seeking any amendment in the suit and not applicable to the Execution Proceedings.