HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3339 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 10.06.2011 in I.A.No.453 of 2011 in O.S.No.117 of 2004 on the file of XI Additional District Judge (F.T.C), whereunder the said application filed by the petitioners seeking to come on record as defendant Nos.10 to 12, was dismissed. The first respondent herein filed the suit against defendants 1 to 3 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 20.05.2004. It is stated that after completion of the recording of evidence, the matter has reached the stage of arguments. At that stage the petitioners herein, who were third parties to the suit, filed I.A No.453 of 2011 seeking to be impleaded as defendants 10 to 12. The first petitioner is the husband and petitioners 2 and 3 are the children of defendant No.3 in the suit. The said defendant No.3 is stated to be missing since October, 2010. But, however, she is also shown as first petitioner in I.A No.453 of 2011. The petitioners herein seek to come on record on the ground that defendant No.3 got the suit property by way of settlement deed executed in her favour by her grand father and since defendant No.3 is missing there is no one on record to represent her interest, which would adversely affect the interest of the petitioners in future. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in spite of giving a complaint to the police, which was registered as case of ‘woman missing’, defendant No.3 could not be traced yet. As defendant No.3 is stated to be missing only since October, 2010, it is not a case where a civil death can be presumed. Even according to the petitioners under the settlement deed absolute interest was conveyed only in favour of defendant No.3 and there is no present interest conveyed in favour the petitioners in the suit property. As petitioners have no present or subsisting interest in the suit property, they are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. Their impleadment as parties to the suit is therefore unwarranted. However, as observed by the Court below, it is open to the petitioners to give evidence before the Court regarding the aspect of missing of defendant No.3. But they cannot be impleaded as parties to the suit, as their presence is not required for adjudication of dispute between the plaintiff and other defendants. The impugned order does not call for any interference by this court. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 26.12.2011 va