Judgment :- Animadverting upon the order dated 04.07.2008 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Erode, in I.A.No.47 of 2008 in I.A.No.698 of 2006 in O.S.No.170 of 2006, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Avoiding discursive discussion, I would like to pithily and precisely, succinctly and tersely set out the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition: I.A.No.47 of 2008 was filed by the revision petitioners/third parties seeking the following relief: "To implead the petitioners as respondent in I.A.No.698 of 2006." However, the trial Court dismissed it. Challenging the order, this revision is focussed on various grounds. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would develop his argument to the effect that O.S.No.170 of 2006 was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs seeking partition. Preliminary decree was passed. During the pendency of the final decree proceedings when the Commissioner visited the suit property, the revision petitioners came to know about the pendency of the suit. Whereupon, they filed the I.A.No.698 of 2006 for getting themselves impleaded. However, the lower Court dismissed it invoking the plea of lis pendens as well as laches etc; no hardship would be caused to any one if the I.A.No.47 of 2008 is allowed and the petitioners being third parties who acquired the rights of some of the co-sharers could work out their equities before the said Court itself. 5. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondents would vehemently oppose the prayer for allowing I.A.No.47 of 2008 on the ground that the suit is of the year 1987 and renumbered as O.S.No.170 of 2006; the lower Court also already passed the final decree; whatever shares belong to the revision petitioners vendors in items 5 and 6, the revision petitioners would be able to get them and there would be no problem, even though purportedly they purchased the entire 5th and 6th items of the suit properties. 6. I would like to recollect and call up, the common or garden principle of law that in partition suits, even third parties could be allowed to be impleaded as parties so that whatever shares the third parties acquired in the suit property from the co-sharers, they would be able to work out their equities. Such third parties cannot put forth any new plea, but only pray for equities and nothing more. 7. Such third parties cannot put forth any new plea, but only pray for equities and nothing more. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would clarify that along with the order passed in the final decree I.A.No.698 of 2006, the order in I.A.No.47 of 2008 was also passed dismissing it. Hence, it is just and necessary to reopen I.A.No.47 of 2008 to enable the third parties to work out their remedy. Accordingly, I.A.No.47 of 2008 is allowed setting aside the order passed by the lower Court and by allowing this revision petition. I.A.No.698 of 2006 which is one for final decree shall stand reopened and the final decree shall stand set aside and consequently the respondent shall be impleaded therein, whereupon the they could only seek for their equities relating to the shares which they purported to have purchased from some sharers. 8. The lower Court shall dispose of the I.A.No.698 of 2006 after such reopening within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both sides shall cooperate with the Court in that regard. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.