RANGANAYAKI Vs. M BALASUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/decree holder/plaintiff has filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 29. 06. 2009 in E. A. No. 971 of 2009 in E. P. No. 1889 of 2008 in O. S. No. 536 of 1993 passed by the learned IX Assistant Judge, City Civil court, Chennai in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code praying to implead the son viz. , second respondent and the third respondent being a tenant of second respondent.

(2.) TO avoid an avoidable delay, this Court dispenses with the issuance of notice to the respondents in the interest of justice.

(3.) THE Executing Court, while passing orders in E. A. No. 971 of 2009 dated 29. 06. 2009, has, inter alia, come to the conclusion that '. . . But, in the execution court, unless and until the third party obstructing the execution is made out, the necessary party cannot be made etc. and the petition for impleading the parties 2nd and 3rd respondents is without any justification and resultantly, dismissed the application without costs. '