THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.11 OF 2011 DATED:08.08.2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 27.10.2010, in I.A.No.832 of 2010 in O.S.No.167 of 2001 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Piler, wherein the said application filed under Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice for making consequential amendment, pursuant to allowing the application-I.A.No.878 of 2002 for impleadment of the 3rd defendant, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff. None appeared for the respondents though served with notices. Perused the records. 3. Petitioner herein filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale. Defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement contesting the suit. Subsequently, petitioner filed I.A.No.878 of 2002 under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleadment of the 3rd defendant and the same was allowed on 16.09.2010. Thereafter, petitioner filed the present I.A.No.832 of 2010 on 29.09.2010 seeking permission to make certain consequential amendment, which arose pursuant to impleadment of the 3rd defendant. By the impugned order, the said application was dismissed, observing how this petition is maintainable when I.A.No.878 of 2002 was allowed. The necessity to file the present application-I.A.No.832 of 2010 arose only consequent to the allowing of I.A.No.878 of 2002. When the main application is allowed and the 3rd defendant was permitted to be impleaded, the trial Court ought to have permitted the plaintiff to make the necessary consequential amendment also as set out in I.A.No.832 of 2010. The impugned order, dismissing the said application is unsustainable. The impugned order is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.832 of 2010 stands allowed. Petitioner is permitted to make the consequential amendment in the plaint. 4. Civil Revision Petition is allowed accordingly. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 08th August, 2011. Tsy