This revision petition has been directed against the order passed in I.A.No.25 of 2004 in O.S.No.50 of 2004(I.A.No.161 of 2004 in O.S.No.127 of 1996 on the file of Sub Court, Hosur) on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri.
2. I.A.No.25 of 2004 in O.S.No.50 of 2004 (I.A.No.161 of 2004 in O.S.No.127 of 1996 on the file of Sub Court, Hosur)was filed for passing a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.127 of 1996 by the plaintiff/decree holder. The revision petitioner is the First defendant in O.S.No.127 of 1996 against whom after impleading the 9th defendant in the array of parties, the plaintiff has failed to take steps for issuance of summons which resulted in the dismissal of the suit as against 9th defendant. The plaintiff was granted preliminary decree for = share of the plaint schedule property. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial Judge, Defendants 1,2,7 and 8 have preferred an appeal in A.S.No.168 of 1998 therein 9th defendant Krishnaveni was arrayed as 6th respondent. In the final decree application (I.A.No.25 of 2004) filed by the plaintiff, only D1 to D8 were shown as respondents 1 to 8 and 9th defendant Krishnaveni's name does not find a place.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1,5 and 6 herein would contend that Krishnaveni is not a necessary party to the final decree proceedings since she filed a petition to get herself impleaded in the final decree application and withdrew the same later endorsing that she is not claiming any share in the petition schedule property. But the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/first defendant would contend that the first defendant has not filed any such application and she has not made any endorsement disclaiming any share in the petition schedule property.
4. The grievance of the revision petitioner/first defendant is that after having impleaded 9th defendant Krishnaveni as 9th defendant in the suit, after considering her that she is also a necessary party to the suit, the plaintiff has failed to take any steps to her leaving the suit dismissed as against 9th defendant is not a ground to implead 9th defendant in the array of parties in the final decree proceedings. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that when the other aggrieved defendants have filed appeal in A.S.No.168 of 1998, it was not contended on behalf of the plaintiff that 9th defendant Krishnaveni/6th respondent in A.S.No.168 of 1998 is not a necessary party to the appeal.
5. With regard to the remaining 50% of the share Krishnaveni is entitled to take her chance along with other defendants. As far as the remaining 50% of the plaint schedule property, the plaintiff's right has been secured under the decree in A.S.No.168 of 1998.
6. In fine, this civil revision petition is allowed and the 9th defendant Krishnaveni is entitled to file necessary application in the final decree proceedings in I.A.No.25 of 2004 in O.S.No.50 of 2004 to get herself impleaded as additional respondent within one month from today and after impleading her, the learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of I.A.No.25 of 2004 in O.S.No.50 of 2004 within two months thereafter failing which this civil revision petition shall deem to have been dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.1 of 2006 is closed.
sg To the First Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri