MARIMUTHU AND OTHERS Vs. MARIAMMAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs had filed O.S.No.125 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tuticorin for partition and separate possession, etc. and the said suit was decreed on 14.09.2009 in favour of the plaintiffs and a preliminary decree was also passed. Thereafter, since no appeal was filed against the said order, the plaintiffs had filed I.A.No.2177 of 2011 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for effecting partition, which was also ordered on 25.07.2017. While so, the revision petitioners herein, who are third parties to the suit had subsequently filed I.A.No.37 of 2018 for impleading them as parties to the suit before passing a final decree and the said application was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the application was filed with an intention to prevent the Court from passing a final decree. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioners are before this Court.

(2.) It is the case of the revision petitioners that the suit schedule property originally belonged to one Vel Konar and his wife/1st respondent and the same was subsequently mortgaged so as to purchase 4 cents of land jointly and with the hard labour of the family members. Pursuant to the difference of opinion between the petitioners and the 2nd plaintiff, they lived separately, but however, the petitioners are entitled to their share in the property. The revision petitioners had filed a suit in O.S.No.103 of 2016 claiming share in the property and the plaintiffs, without adding the revision petitioners as parties, obtained an order in their favour.

(3.) The revision petitioners state that as per Order 1, Rule 10(2) CPC, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings strike of the plaint, which has been filed without adding necessary parties for effective adjudication and settle the entire disputes by involving itself necessary questions and the Trial Court, without doing so, had simply dismissed the application, thereby causing much prejudice to the revision petitioners. Contending that no prejudice would be caused to the other side, in the event of the petition being allowed, it is prayed that the order of the Trial Court is liable to be set aside.