Judgment :- (Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the Order and Decreetal Order dated 15.07.2004 made in I.A.No.218 of 2004 in O.S.No.1156 of 1996 on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil.) This Revision is directed against the Order of Second Additional District Munsif in I.A. No.218 of 2004 in O.S.No.1156 of 1996 dated 15.07.2004 dismissing the Application filed under Or.1 R.10 (2) and Sec.151 C.P.C. The Plaintiff is the Revision Petitioner. 2. The Suit O.S.No.1156 of 1996 was filed for Declaration of the Plaintiff's Title and Possession over Plaint 'B' and 'C' Schedule Property and alternatively to remove the encroachment and for Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants 1 and 2 and their men. 3. I.A.No.218 of 2004 was filed to implead the proposed Respondents 3 to 5 as Defendants 3 to 5 in the Suit. In the Application, it is alleged that after the Commissioner's Receipt, the Plaintiff has come to know that the proposed Respondents 3 to 5 have occupied some portion of the Suit Property and hence, they are necessary parties and without them, the Suit cannot be effectively be adjudicated. 4. The above Application was objected on the ground that the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff has already filed I.A.No.922 of 2003 for the same relief and that the Petition was dismissed on 20.02.2004. Further the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff has also filed another Suit in O.S.No.889 of 1996 against the proposed third Respondent and the Suit was dismissed for default on 25.02.2002. Hence, under such circumstances, the proposed parties are not necessary parties and the Petition has been filed belatedly. 5. Upon consideration of the contention of both parties, the learned Second Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil dismissed the Application mainly on the ground that earlier, similar Application was filed in I.A.No.922 of 2003 and the same was dismissed. It was also pointed out that in view of the filing of the Suit in O.S.No.889 of 1996 against the proposed Defendants and dismissal of that Suit for default, adding of the proposed parties as Defendants is not warranted. 6. Aggrieved over the Order of dismissal of the Application, Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff has preferred this Revision. 7. It was also pointed out that in view of the filing of the Suit in O.S.No.889 of 1996 against the proposed Defendants and dismissal of that Suit for default, adding of the proposed parties as Defendants is not warranted. 6. Aggrieved over the Order of dismissal of the Application, Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff has preferred this Revision. 7. Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the Lower Court did not properly appreciate that the proposed parties are in possession of a portion of the Suit Property and that they are necessary parties to the Suit. 8. Even at the outset, it has to be pointed out that there is no merit in this Revision Petition, as rightly pointed out by the learned Second Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil earlier. The Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff has filed I.A.No.922 of 2003 for the same relief of impleading the Respondents 3 and 4 as additional Defendants and that Application was dismissed. The Plaintiff has also filed another Suit in O.S.No.889 of 1996 against the proposed parties and the same was dismissed for default. While so, the Application I.A.No.218 of 2004 is nothing but a re-litigation on the same point. This Revision is bereft of merits and is bound to fail. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the Order passed by the Second Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil dated 15.07.2004 made in I.A.No.218 of 2004 in O.S.No.1156 of 1996 is confirmed and this Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P.No.1136 of 2004 is also dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.