(1.) THE petitioner is third party to the suit, who filed two applications before the 14th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.8879 of 1997 to implead her as a party. THE first respondent is plaintiff, who filed the suit for a mandatory injunction directing the removal of superstructure available in the suit schedule property reportedly put up by the defendants. He also filed an application in I.A.No.16639 of 2006 under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to note down the physical features of the schedule mentioned property with the assistance of qualified surveyor. THE two petitions filed by the present petitioner are, one in I.A.No.15545 of 2007 to implead her as party under Section 94(e) r/w Sec.151 of C.P.C., in I.A.No.16639 of 2006 and another in I.A.No.15546 to implead her under Order 22 Rule 10 and Section 151 of C.P.C., in O.S.No.8879 of 1997. Both the applications were resisted by the first respondent/plaintiff by filing separate counters.
(2.) IN the affidavit filed by this petitioner before the Court below, it is alleged that during the pendency of the suit, the 7th defendant in the suit sold the property in Door No.31, Tanks Square West Street, Saidapet, Chennai, which is the subject matter of the suit under a registered sale deed dated 5.7.2006 to this petitioner and hence she has become the owner of the property and that the right, title and interest in the property have devolved upon her and she may be impleaded as 8th defendant in the suit and that there would be no prejudice to the plaintiff in impleading her in the suit.
(3.) THE petitioner purchased the property covered by the suit on 05.07.2006 from the 7th defendant/8th respondent pending the trial of the case. It is her submission that even though the suit is in part heard stage, she does not seek to re-open the case afresh and that she is not going to file any independent written statement in case of her application for the impleadment being allowed.