Judgment :- This revision has been directed against the Order dated 23.1.2003 made in I.A.No. 1271 of 2003 in O.S.No.415 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruchengode, allowing the application filed under Order I, Rule 10(2) C.P.C. The proposed party/Tiruchengode Taluk Co-operative Housing Society, is the Revision Petitioner. 2. O.S.No. 415 of 1992: - Case of the Plaintiff is that his father Muthusamy Gounder was the member of Tiruchengode Co-operative House Building Society Limited No.S.946 (herein after referred as 'Defendant-society'). The Plaintiff purchased Plot No.C.53 for valid consideration as per the sale deed dated 5.3.1953. The Plaintiff has constructed two houses and one shop in the plot purchased. The Plaintiff is using northern side East-West road and western North-South road to have free ingress and regress. There is no other way to reach the main road excepting 30 feet road. While so, the Defendant-Society approached the Plaintiff and asked the Plaintiff to close the entrance facing west; but the Plaintiff was not amenable for the same. On 9.12.1992, the Defendant-Society came along with its men and attempted to put fence by barbed wires and also attempted to cut the branches of the Banyan tree. The Plaintiff prevented the attempts of the Defendant. Subsequent to the filing of the suit, the Defendant-Society had put up stone pillars and fenced the suit property by barbed wires with a view to prevent the Plaintiff's ingress and regress on the western side gates and Door way. Hence, the Plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from preventing the Plaintiff user of 30 feet North-South road on the western side and restraining the Defendant-Society and its subordinates from in any way putting up construction on the suit road and also for mandatory injunction directing the Defendant to remove the existing stone pillars and barbed wires. 3. The Defendant-Society has filed the written statement contending that the Tiruchengodu Co-operative House Building Society was the original owner, the said Society passed resolution in the General Body Meeting held on 24.4.1990 whereby they have resolved to sell the southern portion to the Defendant-Society and northern portion to Tiruchengodu Taluk co-operative Housing Society. Accordingly, by the Sale Deed dated 26.10.1990, the southern portion was sold to Defendant-Society and the Defendant-Society was put in possession of the southern portion of the suit property. Accordingly, by the Sale Deed dated 26.10.1990, the southern portion was sold to Defendant-Society and the Defendant-Society was put in possession of the southern portion of the suit property. Ever since the date of purchase, the Defendant-Society had been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the southern portion of the suit property. Tiruchengodu Taluk Cooperative Housing Society had put up barbed fence around the suit property. The barbed fence was put up immediately after purchase. It is absolutely false to state that the fence was put up after the filing of the suit on 9.12.1992. If the Plaintiff has got any remedy, that remedy is only against Tiruchengodu Taluk Co-operative Housing Society Limited. The Plaintiff has filed the suit against wrong person and the suit is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. 4. The trial commenced on 4.9.2002. At that time, the Plaintiff has filed I.A.No.1271 of 2002 under Order I, Rule 10(2) C.P.C. to implead Tiruchengodu Taluk Co-operative Housing Society Limited. In the affidavit, it is alleged that the Defendant-Society had taken the plea that a portion of the suit property had been sold to the proposed party and Tiruchengodu Taluk Co-operative Housing Society Limited (herein after referred as 'Taluk Society') is a necessary party for complete and full adjudication. Only when the Defendant-Society had produced the Sale Deeds dated 26.10.1990, the Plaintiff came to know about the sale and after perusal of the sale Deeds, it has become necessary to implead the proposed party – Taluk Society as Defendant. 5. Resisting the application, the Taluk Society has filed counter statement contending that the application has been filed belatedly. Though the suit was filed in the year 1992, the Plaintiff had not filed the application for impleading the proposed party for more than 10 years. When the trial was commenced and after examining the Plaintiff as P.W.1 and the Plaintiff's side evidence being closed, the Plaintiff is not entitled to file such an application to implead the Taluk Society as Defendant. The averment in the Plaint that there is a road on the western side of the Plaintiff's house is false. In the property situating on the west of Plot No.C.53, there are several grown up trees Banyan tree, Asoka tree etc. and there is also barbed wire fencing and there are electric post, telegraphic post and also municipal ditches and culvert. In the property situating on the west of Plot No.C.53, there are several grown up trees Banyan tree, Asoka tree etc. and there is also barbed wire fencing and there are electric post, telegraphic post and also municipal ditches and culvert. The application filed belatedly for impleading the proposed party cannot be allowed. 6. Upon consideration of the averments in the affidavit and in the counter statement, the learned District Munsif found that the Taluk Co-operative Housing Society is the necessary party. Pointing out that the Sale Deeds are both in favour of the Defendant-Society and the Taluk Co-operative Housing Society, the learned District Munsif held that the Taluk Society is the necessary party and allowed the application ordering impleading of Taluk Society. 7. Aggrieved over allowing of the application, the Revision Petitioner – Taluk Society has preferred this Revision. The first Respondent/Plaintiff, and second Respondent/Defendant-Society were served with notice. But they have not entered appearance. The contention urged by the Plaintiff in the Court below has been taken into consideration for disposal of this Revision Petition. 8. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/ Taluk Society has submitted that there is lack of bonafide in the belated filing of the application. Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has interalia made the following submissions. "Taluk Society – Proposed party is neither a necessary party nor a proper party; "In view of Order I, Rule 10(5) C.P.C., the claim against the Taluk Society is barred by limitation; "By impleading of the Taluk Society, no relief could be sought for against the Revision Petitioner since the barbed wire fencing had already been put up immediately after purchase. The impugned order is mainly assailed on the ground that the trial Court has not taken note of the inordinate delay in filing the application i.e. nearly ten years after the filing of the suit. 9. Even at the out set, belatedly with which the application has been filed is to be noted:- Suit in O.S.No.415 of 1992 filed on : 11.12.1992 Written Statement of Defendant filed on : 29.9.1994 Trial commenced on : 04.9.2002 I.A.No.1271 of 2002 filed on : 07.11.2002 After the commencement of the trial, Plaintiff's evidence was closed. 9. Even at the out set, belatedly with which the application has been filed is to be noted:- Suit in O.S.No.415 of 1992 filed on : 11.12.1992 Written Statement of Defendant filed on : 29.9.1994 Trial commenced on : 04.9.2002 I.A.No.1271 of 2002 filed on : 07.11.2002 After the commencement of the trial, Plaintiff's evidence was closed. When the case was adjourned for continuation of trial, the application for impleading the proposed party has been filed nearly 8 years after the filing of the written statement by the Defendant-Society. No convincing reason had been stated for such delay in filing the application. 10. In para-5 of the affidavit, the Plaintiff has stated that during cross examination of P.W.1, two Sale Deeds dated 26.10.1990 have been produced and only by perusal of the above said Sale Deeds dated 26.10.1990, he came to known that a portion has been sold to Taluk Society-Proposed party and that since the proposed party has a right upon the suit property, the proposed party is a necessary party. The above averments are demonstrably incorrect. In the written statement filed by the Defendant-Society in 1994, the Defendant-society has clearly alleged that the southern portion was sold to the Defendant-Society and the northern portion was sold to Tiruchengodu Taluk Co-operative Housing Society Limited by two Sale Deeds dated 26.10.1990. Further in the written statement, it has been clearly alleged that Tiruchengodu Taluk Co-operative Housing Society had put up barbed wire fence and Taluk Society is a necessary party and the remedy if any, to the Plaintiff is only against the Taluk Co-operative Housing Society. Further in the written statement, it is clearly averred that on the western side of the property, barbed fence had already been put up. Though definite plea had been put forth in the written statement in the year 1994, the Plaintiff had not taken immediate/appropriate steps to implead the proposed party. 11. The order of the trial Court is very cryptic. In the impugned order, the learned District Munsif has stated that since a Sale Deed has been executed in favour of the proposed party, the proposed party is a necessary party and allowed the application. The trial Court has not adverted to the delay in filing of the application nor the stage of the suit in which the application has been filed. 12. The trial Court has not adverted to the delay in filing of the application nor the stage of the suit in which the application has been filed. 12. The suit had been filed for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from preventing the Plaintiff from using North-South road on the western side of his property. Subsequently, the suit is sought to be amended for mandatory injunction directing the Defendant-Society to remove the existing stone pillars and barbed wires. It has been alleged that on 17.12.1992, the Defendant-Society had erected stone pillars and fences around the suit property. In para-8 of the counter statement filed by the proposed party, it is alleged that there was a barbed wire fencing and Banyan tree and telegraphic post and also municipal ditches and culvert are situated. If the proposed party is to be impleaded as per Order I, Rule 10(5) C.P.C., the proceeding against the person added as a Defendant shall be deemed to have taken only on the service of summons. Under Section 21 of the Limitation Act, addition of the Defendant, the suit as regards him, shall be deemed to have been instituted when he was so made as a party. It is relevant to note that when the proposed party/ Taluk Society has purchased the northern portion on 26.10.1990, it would not be proper or legal to implead the proposed party – Taluk Society as a Defendant in the suit in 2002 since the claim as already become barred by limitation. The trial Court has also not considered the application for impleading in the light of Section 21 of the Limitation Act and Order I, Rule 10 (5) C.P.C. 13. If the impugned order is to be sustained, it would have serious consequences. By allowing the application under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C., the Plaint is to be amended. After Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) 2002, no amendment application could be filed after the commencement of trial excepting in genuine cases. The case in hand is not such genuine case to allow the impleading petition and the consequential amendment thereon. 14. The trial Court has not taken note of the stage in which, the application was filed nor the delay in filing the application. The impugned order is very cryptic and there is no proper exercise of discretion in allowing the application. 14. The trial Court has not taken note of the stage in which, the application was filed nor the delay in filing the application. The impugned order is very cryptic and there is no proper exercise of discretion in allowing the application. The impugned order suffers from serious infirmity and the same has to be set aside. 15. For the forgoing reasons, the order of the learned District Munsif, Tiruchengode made in I.A.No.1271 of 2002 in O.S.No. 415 of 1992, dated 23.1.2003 is set aside and the Revision Petition is allowed. The District Munsif, Tiruchengode is directed to expeditiously dispose of the suit in O.S.No.415 of 1992 in accordance with law. Consequently, C.M.P.No.7465 of 2003 is closed.