The application filed by the respondent to implead the Legal Representatives of the deceased Nataraja Nadar was allowed by the learned appellate Judge. The order is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondent deliberately failed to implead all the Legal Representatives. According to the learned counsel, the suit was filed in 2001. But, however, the impleading petition was filed only during the appellate stage.
3. I have also heard the learned counsel for the respondent.
4. There is no dispute that two suits were filed by the respondent. In one of the suits, all the Legal Representatives were made parties. In the other suit, only two Legal Representatives were included. The Trial Court dismissed both the suits by way of common judgment and decree. It was only during the appellate stage, the respondent filed the application for impleading. Since the estate of the deceased was represented by two of the Legal Representatives and that it was a common judgment, the first appellate Court was correct in impleading the remaining respondents as parties in A.S.No.1 of 2009. I am, therefore, of the view that the impugned order does not call for interference.
5. In the upshot, I dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To The Sub Court, Aruppukottai.
.