ORDER: Here is an order of the learned District Munsif Dharmapuri, allowing an application for impleadment of the revision petitioners as defendants 5 and 6 in a pending suit on its file. 2. It was a suit filed by the respondent for declaration of his promissory title and consequential injunction. As could be well seen from the averment in the plaint that the suit was originally filed against the defendants 1 to 3 with a specific cause of action stating that the defendant 1 to 3 were attempting to interfere in the lawful possession of the plaintiff in the suit property in or about January 1, 1998 and thereafter. From the very averment in the application to add the proposed parties, it has been clearly averred that they have purchased the property pending the proceedings, and hence, they have got to be added as necessary parties to the suit. The said application was contested by the revision petitioners/ proposed parties stating that the properties originally belonged to the first defendant, who sold the same to one Arumugam even before the filing of the suit and pending the suit, the property was conveyed by Arumugam to the proposed defendants, who are the revision petitioners herein and thus, on the date of the suit, the defendants 1 to 3 against whom the suit was filed had no subsisting interest in the property and thus, if the amendment, which was sought to be ordered would be nothing, but an introduction of new cause of action and hence, it should not be allowed. If it is ordered, it would be detrimental and prejudicial to the interest of the proposed parties/ defendants 5 and 6. 3. Contrary to the above, the learned counsel for the respondent would urge that though the suit was filed against the defendants 1 to 3 after the alienation by the first defendant in favour of Arumugam, notice has already been issued and pending notice, the property has been conveyed and apart from that the proposed 5th and 6th defendants have purchased the property during the pendency of the suit from the said Arumugam. Hence, for the proper adjudication of the matter, they have gop to be necessarily impleaded and the lower Court was perfectly correct in allowing the application for impleadment. Hence, for the proper adjudication of the matter, they have gop to be necessarily impleaded and the lower Court was perfectly correct in allowing the application for impleadment. The Court is unable to agree with the contention, put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents/ plaintiffs’ side. It was a suit for declaration of possessory title with specific cause of action complaining about the acts of the defendants 1 to 3 therein. While so, if the petition is allowed to implead the proposed parties, it would be nothing but the introduction of a new cause of action and the suit itself will be changed. Hence, it should not be permitted. If at all, the plaintiff has got remedies in respect of his alleged possessory title in respect of the suit property and for consequential injunction, he has to file a fresh suit against the parties, whom sought to be impleaded as party to the suit. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the contentions put forth by the respondents’ side, it is a fit case, where liberty has got to be given to the plaintiffs’ side to file a fresh suit against the proposed parties, if so advised. 4. With that liberty, this civil revision petition is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P. is closed.