1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.01.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION (MP) (PD) No.94 of 2011 1.Lingama Naicker (died) 2.L.Vellaiammal 3.L.Kumarasamy .. Petitioners Vs. 1.S.S.A.Petchimuthu Pillai (died) 2.Jeganathaperumal 3.Kandasamy 4.Ramesh 5.Sidhu Reddiar 6.Chandrasekaran 7.Bose 8.Kasimani 9.Marikkannan 10.Murugesan 11.Selvakumari 12.P.Maridoss 13.P.Ravi 14.S.Chitra 15.L.Ravi Narayanan .. Respondents Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 23.08.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application No.153 of 2010 in Interlocutory Application No.235 of 2008 in Original Suit No.53 of 2006 by the Sub Court, Aruppukkottai. For Petitioners: Mr.M.S.Balasubramania Iyer ORDER The impugned order dated 23.08.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application No.153 of 2010 in Original Suit No.53 of 2006 by the Sub Court, Aruppukkottai is being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The revision petitioners herein as plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit No.53 of 2006 on the file of the Court below for the relief of redemption. During pendency of the same, the first defendant therein viz., S.S.A.Petchimuthu Pillai has passed away and in order to implead his legal heirs, Interlocutory Application No.235 of 2008 has been filed and the same is pending. But some of his legal heirs have been left out and in order to implead them, the petition in question has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.153 of 2010. The Court below has dismissed the same simply on the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 ground that with regard to the legal heirs of the deceased mentioned in Interlocutory Application No.153 of 2010, Original Suit No.53 of 2006 has become abated. Against the dismissal order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred. 3. Considering the nature of the relief sought for in Interlocutory Application No.153 of 2010 as well as the nature of the order passed by the Court below, notice need not be sent to the respondents and this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has contended that Interlocutory Application No.235 of 2008 has been filed so as to implead some of the legal heirs of the deceased first respondent viz., S.S.A.Petchimuthu Pillai, but some of his legal heirs have been left out and in order to implead them, the present petition has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.153 of 2010 and the proper procedure is to include them in Interlocutory Application No.235 of 2008, but the Court below without considering the fact that Interlocutory Application No.235 of 2008 has been filed before the alleged abatement of Original Suit No.53 of 2006, has erroneously dismissed Interlocutory Application No.153 of 2010 and therefore the dismissal order passed in Interlocutory Application No.153 of 2010 is liable to be set aside. 5. As stated earlier, Interlocutory Application No.235 of 2008 has been filed so as to implead the alleged legal heirs of the deceased first respondent viz., S.S.A.Petchimuthu Pillai. Further it is an admitted fact that some of the legal heirs have not been impleaded in Interlocutory Application No.235 of 2008 and in order to implead them in Original Suit No.53 of 2006, a separate application in Interlocutory Application No.153 of 2010 has been filed. The proper procedure to be adopted in the present case is that the legal heirs of the deceased first respondent mentioned in Interlocutory Application No.153 of 2010 can very well be impleaded in Interlocutory Application No.235 of 2008. But instead of adopting that type of procedure, Interlocutory Application No.153 of 2010 has been erroneously filed. The Court below has dismissed the same simply on the ground that so far as Interlocutory Application No.153 of 2010 is concerned Original Suit No.53 of 2006 has become abated without considering the pendency of Interlocutory Application No.235 of 2008. Under the said circumstances, as pointed out earlier the proper procedure is to implead the alleged legal hears of the deceased first respondent mentioned in Interlocutory Application No.153 of 2010 in Interlocutory Application No.235 of 2008 and therefore the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 6. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs at the stage of admission. However the revision petitioners are directed to implead the alleged legal heirs mentioned in Interlocutory Application No.153 of 2010 in Interlocutory Application No.235 of 2008. The Court below is directed to pass suitable order as per law. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To The Subordinate Judge, Aruppukkottai. +1cc to Mr.Balasubramania Iyer, Advocate, Sr.No.2353 C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.94 of 2011 20.01.2011 smn SMA/31.1.2011/3C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/