R NATARAJAN Vs. RUKMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred by the petitioner/d8, who had filed the petition in I. A. No. 1861 of 2006 seeking for cancelation of the endorsement made by her counsel on 18. 10. 2005 of giving up the respondents 1, 2, 6, 8 and 9 and consequently for ordering fresh notice to those persons for the purpose of adjudicating the claim made in I. A. No. 1170 of 2005, which was dismissed by the court by giving an option to implead the said persons once again in the said petition.

(2.) THE averments made by the petitioner in I. A. No. 1861of 2006 are as follows:-The petitioner is the 8th defendant in the suit. The 1st respondent and respondents 3 to 13 are petitioner's brothers and sisters born to the father radhakrishna Reddiar, the mother Kammalammal, who died intestate, leaving the suit properties. The 1st respondent has filed the suit for partition and separate possession of her 1/14th share. After contest, the suit was decreed on 20. 12. 1994 through passing preliminary decree by declaring the plaintiff's 1/14th share. The 14th respondent is a purchaser from the first defendant. Pending the suit, the said 1st defendant viz. , Srinivasan died. His wife samundeswari was impleaded as 2nd respondent in the application. The petitioner has filed I. A. No. 1170 of 2005 for passing of preliminary decree in her favour by allotting her 1/14th share in the suit properties. The respondents 1, 2, 6, 8 and 9 failed to receive the summon and hence, the petitioner has instructed her counsel to give up the aforesaid respondents in order to avoid delay. The other respondents 4 and 11 filed additional counter stating that all the respondents are necessary parties. So, the petitioner was advised to cancel the endorsement made by her counsel on 18. 10. 2005. Hence, the application.

(3.) IN I. A. No. 1861 of 2006 the 3rd respondent filed a counter, which was adopted by respondents 4 and 11, which runs as follows:-