Judgment :- The civil revision petitioner/ proposed party has projected this civil revision petition as against the order dated 25.03.2008 made in I.A. No. 574 of 2007 in O.S.No.75/2006 passed by the file of Additional District-cum-Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No. III), Coimbatore, in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner/ proposed party under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C, praying to implead the revision petitioner as fourth defendant in the Suit. 2. The trial court while passing orders in I.A. No. 574/2007 has inter-alia observed that by not adding the civil revision petitioner/ third party as party to the pending suit proceedings, no harm will be caused to the revision petitioner and on the other hand, if the revision petitioner/ third party is added as a party then the suit proceedings will get delayed and further that the revision petitioner/ third party is not a party to the suit proceedings and the Judgment and decree to be passed in that case will not bind him in any manner and resultantly dismissed the application. 3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ third party urges before this court that the order passed by the trial court in I.A. No. 574/2007 is unreasonable and against law and that the trial court ought to have seen, by including the revision petitioner/ proposed party as defendant, will not prejudice the rights of plaintiffs and defendants in the suit and on the other hand by impleading the revision petitioner, all the controversies of the parties can be heard and the dispute can be decided and these aspects of the matter have not been looked into by the trial court in proper perspective and that the trial court should have seen that the genuineness of Will can only be proved at the time of trial and in any event the non- production of the Will by the revision petitioner/ third party cannot be put against the revision petitioner/ third party and therefore prays for dismissal of the order of the trial court to prevent aberration of justice. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 and 3 to 5 contend that the order passed by the trial court in dismissing the I.A. No. 574/2007 by assigning cogent and convincing reasons are correct in the eye of law and the same need not be interfered by this court, sitting in revision. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 and 3 to 5 contend that the order passed by the trial court in dismissing the I.A. No. 574/2007 by assigning cogent and convincing reasons are correct in the eye of law and the same need not be interfered by this court, sitting in revision. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the revision petitioner/ third party is a necessary party and a proper party to the suit proceedings between the plaintiffs and the defendants and that the revision petitioner/ third party is the grandson of elder brother Thiru K.V. Shanmugham and that the revision petitioner, as third party, claims his right through Will and further that he is in possession of the said properties. To lend support to his contention, he relies on the decision Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors., (1992) 2 SCC p.524), wherein the Honble Supreme Court has inter-alia held that, "the Court has judicial discretion for addition of a necessary party and the same has to be exercised having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in exercise of this discretion, the court can direct a plaintiff, though dominus litis, to implead a person as a necessary party defendant, etc." He also draws the attention of this court to the decision S. Krishnaveni v. D. Rajammal and 5 Ors., (2001(4) CTC p.717), wherein this court has held that, "Landlord is necessary and proper party to suit by tenant in respect of land and legal representative of such landlord after death of landlord are also necessary and proper parties, etc." 6. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 cites the decision Rengasamy v. Rugmini & Ors., of this court reported in (2006 (5) CTC p.332), wherein it is held, "Party sought to implead himself on basis of Will and that Will has not been proved in accordance with law and the party cannot successfully maintain petition for impleadment, etc....." 7. It is to be borne in mind that the power to implead a party under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C is purely a discretion of a court of law. It is to be borne in mind that the power to implead a party under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C is purely a discretion of a court of law. The foremost question, the court of law has to bear in mind under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC is that whether the proposed party is a necessary and proper party and whose presence is necessary for adjudication of the matters in controversy. It is to be noted that without the presence of the proposed parties, whether the suit could be proceeded further and a decision could be arrived at, in a comprehensive way so as to put a quietus to the dispute in controversy. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner/ proposed party claims his right through the Will in respect of the suit properties and according to him he is said to be in possession of the suit properties. In the present case, the suit has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2/ plaintiffs praying for a relief of division of suit properties described in the schedule, into 12 equal shares by metes and bounds and allot 5 such shares to the plaintiffs, etc. The respondents 3 to 5 are the defendants in the suit. 9. In as much as the revision petitioner/ proposed party claims right through a Will, this court is of the considered view that the revision petitioner/ proposed party is neither a necessary nor a proper party and even without his presence the suit can be proceeded with and a decision can be arrived at between the parties in the suit and in that view, the civil revision petition fails and the same is dismissed, in the interest of justice. 10. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed and the order passed by the trial court in I.A. No.574/2007 is confirmed for the reasons assigned by this court in the revision. It is open to the revision petitioner/ third party to work out his remedy in the manner known to law by instituting appropriate proceedings claiming due relief. Further, the trial court is directed to proceed further in the main suit, uninfluenced with any of the observations made by this court, in this revision. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.