Judgment : The civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 11.12.2000 made in I.A.No.469 of 2000 in O.S.No.116 of 2000 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Devakottai thereby allowing the application filed by a third party underO.1, Rule 10(2) and Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Tracing the history of the case it comes to be known that the petitioners herein have filed the suit in O.S.No.116 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge. Devakottai against the respondents 2 and 3 herein for a bare injunction wherein the suit property is a terraced house constructed in an area of 2,358 1/2 sq.ft. 3. During the pendency of the said suit, the first respondent herein, who is a third party to the proceedings, filed an application before the lower Courts underO.1, Rule 10(2) and Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to implead him as a party-defendant to the suit being an interested party. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the said petition before the lower Court, the first respondent herein would allege that the first petitioner herein was the concubine of one late Karupaiah and the second respondent herein was the son of the said Karupaiah born through his wife; that the suit property had been purchased in the name of the first petitioner herein and when herself and late Karupaiah decided to sell the suit property, the first petitioner has executed a registered power of attorney dated 12.10.1994 in favour of late Karupaiah; that thereafter the first respondent entered into an agreement to purchase the suit property for a sole consideration of Rs.3,00,000 on 13.12.1997 and paid an advance amount of Rs.1,00,000 with Karupaiah in the presence of the second respondent and the witnesses: that thereafter on three instalments the remaining amount of Rs.50,000; Rs.50,000 and Rs.1,00,000 have been paid thus the entire sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000 has been paid by the first respondent and the same has been endorsed on the back of the agreement for sale as a result of which the possession of the suit property had been handed over to him further handing over the original documents dated 11.2.1991 and 13.1.1992 pertaining to the suit property. 5. 5. The further contentions of the first respondent in his affidavit filed before the lower Court that while so, late Karupaiahs health was undermined as a result of which, in his capacity as the power of attorney agent of the first petitioner herein, he was not in a position to do the registration in favour of the petitioner in time and in fact due to illness, he died on 21.6.2000; that thereafter the first respondent herein, was requesting the first petitioner to get the sale registered in his favour, but she was giving evasive replies and on 20.9.2000, when the first respondent requested the first petitioner to do the registration, she replied that there was a dispute regarding the suit property between herself and the second respondent and after solving the same, she would do the registration and hence the first respondent convened a panchayat on 24.1.2000, but the first petitioner on false allegations, had filed the present suit in O.S.No.116 of 2000 in order to cheat the first respondent. The first respondent would further submit that he is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract duly entered into with the deceased Karupaiah/power of attorney agent of the first petitioner and thus the first respondent pleaded before the lower Court that he is a necessary party to the suit proceedings and prayed to implead him as party defendant to the suit. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by the petitioners 1 to 3 herein before the lower Court, besides generally denying all the allegations of the affidavit of the first respondent herein, the first petitioner herein would specifically deny the allegation that she is the concubine of late Karupaiah. She would further submit that she was genuinely entitled to the suit property; that excepting herself, no one else has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and that no power or attorney had been executed by her in favour of her husband Karupaiah as falsely alleged by the first respondent. She would further submit that she was genuinely entitled to the suit property; that excepting herself, no one else has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and that no power or attorney had been executed by her in favour of her husband Karupaiah as falsely alleged by the first respondent. Further denying all the allegations regarding the payments as advance on 12.12.1979 and at later dates, as alleged in the petition, the first petitioner herein would ultimately plead that neither the first respondent has any locus standi to file the petition to implead him as a party to the proceedings nor is he concerned in any manner with the suit property so as to consider his case to be impleaded as a necessary party to the suit proceedings and would ultimately pray to dismiss the petition with costs. 7. The Court below, having considered the facts and circumstances encircling the petitioner as filed by the first respondent herein before it and having its own discussing on various aspects, would ultimately allow the application without costs. Aggrieved, the respondents 1 to 3 therein, who are the plaintiffs in the original suit, have come forward to file this civil revision petition seeking to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 11.12.2000 passed by the lower Court on certain ground as brought forth in the memorandum of revision. 8. The strong case put up on the part of the petitioner before the Court in his application filed before the lower Court underO.1, Rule 10(2) and Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is based not only on an agreement with certain endorsements said to have been entered into in between himself and late Karupaiah (who is addressed as the paramour of the first petitioner herein by the first respondent but claimed as her husband by the first respondent) but also there is a pleading to the effect that he has paid the entire sale consideration with the said Karupaiah, who was acting as the power of attorney agent of the first petitioner herein, but in spite of that, since the said Karupaiah fell sick, he was not able to come up to the Registration Office and do the registration in his favour in such capacity regarding the suit property. The first respondent would also allege before the lower Court that the first petitioner, stating that there had been a dispute in between herself and the second respondent, who was dodging to comply with the commitments that the power of attorney agent had with the first respondent regarding the suit properties of which she is the original owner and she had also gone upto the extent of filing the suit against the second and the third respondents alone, leaving the first respondent, under false pretext, as though the first respondent, under false pretext, as though the first respondent has nothing do to with the suit property at all. On such strong grounds and filing necessary documents, the first respondent would come forward to file the petition before the lower Court and the lower Court also, in due consideration of the same has allowed the said application directing the first respondent herein to be impleaded as a necessary party to the proceedings. 9. As perO.1, Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C., the Court is at liberty either to add or strike out parties at any stage of the proceeding and it is a simple procedure that is to be followed either suo motu or on application by parties and if the grievance of the party praying to implead him as a party is found to be genuine by the Court, it would allow the application, lest, it would dismiss the same. Therefore, in the estimate of the Court, if the petitioner, who prays to be impleaded as party, has some case or other to offer, having nexus to the suit claim or suit property, it is always desirable to implead him as a party rather than refusing to implead him, since the expectation of law is that the person seeking impleadment as a party must be given an opportunity to exhaust his remedy in the suit when he is basically found to have been aggrieved of anything regarding the suit claim or property and it is an illusion on the part of the other side to think that either he could be warded off without giving him an opportunity to contest the suit or even to think that by adding such parties, grave injustice could be meted out to the other side since only subject to proof of the facts alleged, with due opportunity for both to be heard in the whole of the trial, ultimate decision is going to be arrived at in the suit on merit and in accordance with law. Therefore, when it comes to the knowledge of the Court that the petitioner seeking impleadment has some case to offer, the Courts are expected to allow such application impleading the party to the suit proceedings and the same has been rightly done by the lower Court in the case in hand. 10. On behalf of the petitioners, two judgments would be cited by the learned counsel appearing on their behalf. The first judgment cited by the learned counsel is one delivered by the Apex Court in Ramesh Hiranand Kundammal v. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others Ramesh Hiranand Kundammal v. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others Ramesh Hiranand Kundammal v. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others (1992)2 L.W. 720 wherein it has been held: “The intervener must have a cause of action against the plaintiff relating to the subject matter of the existing action. The Court has no power to direct addition of a person whose presence is not necessary for that purpose.” It is not only that in the case in hand, the petitioner has a cause of action, but also a purpose for his presence as a party to the suit and therefore, on facts, this proposition does not become applicable to the facts of the case. 11. 11. The other judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is one delivered by a single Judge of this Court in Somasundaram Chettiar and another v. Balasubramanian. Somasundaram Chettiar and another v. Balasubramanian. Somasundaram Chettiar and another v. Balasubramanian. (1998)2 MLJ. 562 : (1998)1 L.W. 772 This judgment has been delivered by the learned single Judge following the judgment of the Apex Court cited supra. Since the very proposition held by the Apex Court has been decided by this Court as one not related to the facts of the case in any manner, the judgment delivered by the learned single Judge of this Court following the same equally becomes inapplicable to the case in hand. 12. For all the discussions held above, the interference of this Court sought to be made into the valid order passed by the lower Court, in the circumstances of the same, is unnecessary and uncalled for and this civil revision petition becomes liable only to be dismissed. 13. In result, the above civil revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. 14. The fair and decretal order dated 11.12.2000 made in I.A.No.469 of 2000 in O.S.No.116 of 2000 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Devakottai is hereby confirmed. 15. Conequently, C.M.P.No.2463 of 2001 is also dismissed. 16. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.