Judgment :- (Civil Revision Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order of Sub Judge, Pudukkottai dated 21.08.2003 in I.A.No.184 of 2003 in O.S.No.143 of 2000, as stated therein.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Order of the Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai in I.A.No.184 of 2003 in O.S.No.143 of 2000 (dated 21.08.2003) allowing the Application filed under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C, ordering to implead the Second Respondent / Proposed Party – Mohamed Ismail. 2. Facts necessitated for disposal of this Civil Revision Petition could briefly be stated thus: - Suit in O.S.No.143 of 2000 was filed by the Respondent / Plaintiff for the reliefs: - i.Declaration of his Title to "Schedule A" property in Merpanaikadu Old S.No.148/18 New S.No.148/24 – Western Portion 1 1/8 out of the Central Portion of 2 ½ Cents; ii.Declaring that "Schedule B" property in Merpanaikadu Old S.No.145/1 New S.No.145/23 – Eastern 14 Cents out of 1.99 Acres; iii.Declaring that "Schedule C" property in Merpanaikadu Old S.No.148/12 New S.No.148/19- 2 ½ cents out of 80 Cents; that "Schedule C" property is the common pathway of the Plaintiff and the Fourth Defendant. 3. The Suit was filed by the Plaintiff – Mohamed Sultan through his Power of Attorney – Duraisamy against Mohamed Ibrahim, Mohamed Jafar and Two other Defendants. In the said Suit, D-1 to D-3 have filed Written Statement, claiming right in "Schedule A" Property. According to the Defendants, Rectification Deed (dated 28.08.1999) relied upon by the Plaintiff is a fraudulent one and executed with the intention to grab the Property. Defendants 1 to 3 have denied the Plaintiff's right in "Plaint Schedule A to C" Properties. The Suit is pending Trial. 4. During the pendency of the Suit, the Plaintiff has filed an Application in I.A.No.184 of 2003 on the file of Sub-Court, Pudukkottai under Order I rule 10 C.P.C to implead Mohamed Ismail, Son of Mohamed Ibrahim of Merpanaikadu as Fifth Defendant. In the Petition, it is alleged that the proposed party Mohamed Ismail owns property adjacent to "Schedule A" Property. Making claim in "Schedule A" property, the said Mohamed Ismail is alleged to have been causing interference to the Plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment in "Schedule-A" Property and hence, the said Mohamed Ismail is sought to be impleaded as Fifth Defendant in O.S.No.143 of 2000. Making claim in "Schedule A" property, the said Mohamed Ismail is alleged to have been causing interference to the Plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment in "Schedule-A" Property and hence, the said Mohamed Ismail is sought to be impleaded as Fifth Defendant in O.S.No.143 of 2000. Opposing impleading of the Proposed party – Mohamed Ismail, two other Defendants have filed their Counter Statement. 5. I.A.No.184 of 2003 was admitted on 04.03.2003. Notice of hearing and Counter of R-1 to R-4 and Notice to R-5 was ordered. On the next hearing – 21.03.2003, fresh Notice was ordered to the proposed party / R-5. On the next hearing – 13.06.2003, R-5 entered appearance through his Counsel. The case was adjourned to 23.07.2003 for filing the Counter of D-1 to D-4 and the proposed party Mohamed Ismail. On 23.07.2003, counter of R-1 (adopted by R-2 and R-3) was filed. For filing the Counter of R-5, the case was adjourned to 21.08.2003. On 21.08.2003, endorsement has been made onbehalf of R-5 as "No counter". Learned Subordinate Judge has allowed the Petition as "No counter. Petition Allowed". Aggrieved over the order of allowing the Petition under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C on the ground of no counter, Defendants 1 to 4 have preferred this Civil Revision Petition. 6. Assailing the Impugned Order, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners has submitted that the Trial Court has erred in not taking note of the Counter Statement filed by First Defendant (adopted by Defendants 2 and 3) and determining the Petition in the light of the averments in the Counter Statement filed by them. Submitting that the cause of action against the proposed party Mohamed Ismail is entirely different, it is contended that impleading of Mohamed Ismail as the Fifth Defendant would result in misjoinder of Defendants and causes of action. Onbehalf of the Revision Petitioners, it is further submitted that the main intention of the Plaintiff in filing the Petition under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C is only to drag on the proceedings, complicating the issues involved. Contending that only a separate Suit ought to have been instituted against the proposed party, it is submitted that the Impugned Order suffers from infirmity, which is to be reversed. 7. Contending that only a separate Suit ought to have been instituted against the proposed party, it is submitted that the Impugned Order suffers from infirmity, which is to be reversed. 7. Countering the arguments of the learned counsel for the Petitioners, learned counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff has submitted that the Plaintiff being dominus litus has got the right to implead the necessary parties and impleading of Mohamed Ismail, who has been denying Plaintiff's "Schedule A" Property cannot be objected to by the Defendants on the ground of misjoinder of Defendants. It is further submitted that the proposed Party Mohamed Ismail has been claiming the right in "Schedule A" Property and that he should be impleaded as a necessary party to the suit for full and complete adjudication. Reliance is placed upon the decision reported in P.R.NALLAPPA VS. P.K.SRINIVAS AND OTHERS ( 2003 (4) L.W. 451 ). 8. Without going into the merits of the contention submitted by the parties, this Civil Revision Petition is to be allowed on the simple ground that the order of allowing I.A.No.184 of 2003 ordering to implead Mohamed Ismail as the proposed Party suffers from infirmity being factually erroneous. There is no separate fair and decretal order as to why the said Mohamed Ismail is ordered to be impleaded as necessary party to the suit. The order of allowing the Petition on the ground of "No counter" is factually incorrect. Even on 23.07.2003, counter of First Defendant / First Respondent has been filed (adopted by Respondents 2 and 3). Only counter of R-5 / Proposed party Mohamed Ismail was not filed and endorsement has been made as "No counter" on behalf of R-5. Learned Subordinate Judge has not taken note of the fact that counter of R-1 to R-3 was filed. Upon hearing both parties viz., the Plaintiff and the contesting Defendants 1 to 3, the Petition ought to have been determined in the light of the objections raised by the Defendants 1 to 3. Learned Subordinate Judge erred in not determing the Petition by taking note of the Counter filed by D-1 to D-3. Hence, the Impugned Order cannot be sustained. Since it is factually erroneous, the same is liable to be set aside. 9. Learned Subordinate Judge erred in not determing the Petition by taking note of the Counter filed by D-1 to D-3. Hence, the Impugned Order cannot be sustained. Since it is factually erroneous, the same is liable to be set aside. 9. Onbehalf of the Revision Petitioners / D-1 to D-4, it is submitted that as against D-1 to D-4, cause of action is alleged as the date of 10.02.2000 and 25.02.2000. On the contrary, regarding the proposed party – Mohamed Ismail, the cause of action – attempt to cause interference has been alleged as 01.02.2003. Drawing the attention of the Court to the dates of cause of action, it is submitted that the date of cause of action differs and that the same cannot be clubbed and the joinder of the proposed party would result in misjoinder of Defendants and causes of action. In this regard, onbehalf of the Revision Petitioners, reliance has been placed upon the decisions reported in DR.S.KAMESWARAN ..VS.. A.JAYARAMAN AND ANOTHER ( 1998 (3) L.W. 777 ) and SATHYAMOORTHY AND ANOTHER ..VS.. POOJARI ALIAS KAVERI AND OTHERS (2002 I M.L.J. 814). 10. Countering the arguments, learned counsel for the Respondent / Plaintiff has submitted that the Plaintiff being the dominus litus has the liberty to add the parties. It is submitted that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, learned Subordinate Judge has rightly allowed the Application, which is to be confirmed. The merits of the rival contentions raised by the parties are to be determined only by the Trial Court, which is the Court of first instance to determine on the factual aspects. This Petition is to be allowed on the simple ground that the Impugned Order is factually incorrect in not taking note of the Counter filed by Defendants 1 to 3. In that view of the matter, this Civil Revision Petition is to be allowed setting aside the order of Sub Judge, Pudukkottai (dated 21.08.2003) in I.A.No.184 of 2003 in O.S.No.143 of 2000. 11. In the result, the order of Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai (dated 21.08.2003) in I.A.No.184 of 2003 in O.S.No.143 of 2000 is set aside and this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai is directed to hold fresh Enquiry in I.A.No.184 of 2003 in O.S.No.143 of 2000 and upon such hearing, determine the Application in the light of the contentious points raised by both the parties. Learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai is directed to hold fresh Enquiry in I.A.No.184 of 2003 in O.S.No.143 of 2000 and upon such hearing, determine the Application in the light of the contentious points raised by both the parties. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.