Judgment : 1. This civil revision petition has been filed against the order, dated 2.4.2008, made in I.A.No.650 of 2004, in O.S.No.132 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dharapuram. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had submitted that the first respondent had filed O.S.No.91 of 2000, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Dharapuram, for partition and for separate possession of the suit property. He had claimed that he was the legal heir of Muthappa Muthiriar and his wife, Thangammal. He had also claimed that he had only one brother by name Nachimuthu and that he had passed away. On the death of his brother, Nachimuthu, the first respondent was entitled to half share in the suit property. The suit had been decreed, on 18.2.2002. 3. It has also been stated that the husband of the first petitioner and the father of the petitioners 2 and 3 was the son of one Palaniammal, who was none other than the sister of the plaintiff and the defendant’s father. The plaintiff had, conveniently, omitted to implead the legal heirs of the said persons, who are entitled to a share in the suit property. In such circumstances, a petition had been filed by one C.V.Ramasamy, in the year, 2004, when he had learnt that the respondents had initiated certain legal proceedings, denying him of the due shares in the property in question. While so, he had died in the year, 2005, and the petitioners herein had been impleaded as his legal heirs. The petitioners are entitled to the share of C.V.Ramasamy in the suit property, which is to be divided out of the properties of deceased Muthappa Muthiriar and Rangammal. 4. The application filed by the petitioners for impleading themselves in the suit had been resisted by the respondent claiming that the deceased Palaniammal was not the daughter of Muthappa Muthiriar and Rangammal. The petitioners had examined one Karuppaathaal, on their behalf, to show that the deceased C.V.Ramasamy was the son of Palaniammal, who was the daughter of Muthappa Muthiriar, the father of the plaintiff. The trial Court, without referring to the oral evidence let in, in favour of the petitioners, had dismissed the application stating that the petitioners had not filed any documentary evidence to show that they are entitled to be impleaded as parties in the suit. The trial Court, without referring to the oral evidence let in, in favour of the petitioners, had dismissed the application stating that the petitioners had not filed any documentary evidence to show that they are entitled to be impleaded as parties in the suit. Therefore, the petitioners had filed the civil revision petition before this Court, in C.R.P.No.2742 of 2007. 5. This Court, by its order, dated 13.11.2007, had set aside the order, dated 10.7.2007, made in I.A.No.650 of 2004, and had remitted the matter back to the trial Court, for fresh consideration with a direction to consider the evidence of Subbathal and to pass orders, afresh, on merits and in accordance with law. Since there was a clerical error, as the name of Subbathal had been mentioned in the said order, instead of Karuppaathaal, a clarification petition had been filed in C.R.P.No.2742 of 2007. In the meantime, the trial Court had dismissed I.A.No.650 of 2004, without perusing the evidence and without application of mind. The trial Court had observed that there is no evidence let in, in the name of Subbathal. 6. It has been further stated that on a perusal of the copy of the evidence, let in before the trial Court, in I.A.Nos.650, 651 and 649 of 2004, in O.S.No.132 of 2004, it is clear that one Karuppaathaal had deposed on behalf of the petitioners in the interlocutory applications. As such the order passed by the trial Court, dated 2.4.2008, made in I.A.No.650 of 2004, is erroneous and illegal. 7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it has been submitted that the first respondent had filed the suit, in O.S.No.91 of 2000, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Dharapuram, against the respondents 2 to 5, for partition and for separate possession of the suit property. The subordinate Court, had passed the preliminary decree, on 18.2.2002. The first respondent had filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.361 of 2002, before the Subordinate Court, for passing a final decree in the said suit. The suit in O.S.No.91 of 2000, had been transferred to the District Munsif Court, Dharapuram, and it has been renumbered as O.S.No.132 of 2004. The interlocutory application in I.A.No.361 of 2002, had been renumbered as I.A.No.649 of 2004. At that stage, the deceased C.V.Ramasamy had filed I.A.No.650 of 2004, to implead him as a party in the final decree proceedings. The suit in O.S.No.91 of 2000, had been transferred to the District Munsif Court, Dharapuram, and it has been renumbered as O.S.No.132 of 2004. The interlocutory application in I.A.No.361 of 2002, had been renumbered as I.A.No.649 of 2004. At that stage, the deceased C.V.Ramasamy had filed I.A.No.650 of 2004, to implead him as a party in the final decree proceedings. The deceased C.V.Ramasamy had contended that Muthappa Muthiriyar and Rangammal had two sons, namely, one Ganapathy, and the deceased Nachimuthu, the grand father of the respondents 2 to 5, and one daughter, namely, Palaniammal. The deceased C.V.Ramasamy is the son of the deceased Palaniammal. 8. The learned counsel for the first respondent had also stated that C.V.Ramamsamy had died, on 17.8.2003. The petitioners had filed an application, in I.A.No.651 of 2004, to implead themselves as parties in I.A.No.650 of 2004. One Karupaathaal and Lakshmi, who is the first petitioner in the present civil revision petition, had been examined as witnesses in I.A.No.651 of 2004. The said interlocutory application had been allowed. Thereafter, I.A.No.650 of 2004, was taken up for hearing by the learned District Munsif, Dharapuram. No evidence had been adduced in I.A.No.650 of 2004. The arguments had been advanced on the basis of the affidavit and the counter affidavit filed by the parties. The respondent had filed a death certificate of Rangammal, in I.A.No.650 of 2004. No other documentary evidence had been filed before the trial Court, in the said application. 9. The learned District Munsif, Dharapuram, had dismissed I.A.No.650 of 2004, accepting the contention of the first respondent that the petitioners had not produced any documentary or oral evidence, to prove that the petitioners and the deceased C.V.Ramasamy are the legal heirs of Muthappa Muthiriyar and Rangammal. The trial Court had also found that there is no documentary evidence to establish that Palaniammal is the legal heir of Muthappa Muthiriyar and Rangammal. Hence, the interlocutory application had been dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a civil revision petition before this Court, in C.R.P.No.2742 of 2007. By an order, dated 13.11.2007, this Court had set aside the order passed in I.A.No.650 of 2004, and it had remanded the matter back to the trial Court, for fresh consideration, by considering the evidence of Subbathal and to pass orders, afresh, on merits, within a period of four weeks. By an order, dated 13.11.2007, this Court had set aside the order passed in I.A.No.650 of 2004, and it had remanded the matter back to the trial Court, for fresh consideration, by considering the evidence of Subbathal and to pass orders, afresh, on merits, within a period of four weeks. Since, no one, by name, ‘Subbathal’, had deposed in I.A.No.650 of 2004, and as no other person has been examined on the side of the petitioners, the trial Court had rightly dismissed the application, in I.A.No.650 of 2004. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent had also submitted that the petitioner had filed the vexatious application, at the instance of the first defendant in the suit, the second respondent herein, who had been set exparte in the preliminary decree. The second respondent had also filed an application to set aside the preliminary decree and it had been dismissed. Against the said order, the second respondent herein, had filed a civil revision petition before this Court, in C.R.P.No.1 of 2005, and this Court had dismissed the said civil revision petition. Thus, the petitioners and the second respondent herein had prevented the first respondent from enjoying the fruits of the decree, for over 9 years. As such, the present civil revision petition is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 11. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present civil revision petition. 12. Even though this Court, by its order, dated 13.11.2007, made in C.R.P.No.2742 of 2007, had remanded the matter back to the trial Court, after setting aside the order, dated 10.7.2007, made in I.A.No.650 of 2004, to consider the evidence of one ‘Subbathal’ and to pass orders, afresh, on merits and in accordance with law, the trial Court had found that no evidence had been let in by a witness in the name of Subbathal. Even though the petitioners had claimed that, due to a clerical error, the name of ‘Subbathal’ had been mentioned in the order of this Court, dated 13.11.2007, instead of the name of Karupaathaal, from the affidavit cum deposition, in I.A.Nos.650, 651 and 649 of 2004, it is seen that one Karuppaathaal, aged about 56 years, residing in Pappampatti village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District, had deposed on behalf of the petitioners in I.A.No.651 of 2004. However, there is nothing to show that she had also deposed as a witness, in respect of the other interlocutory application, in I.A.No.650 of 2004. Further, the petitioners have not been in a position to show that a witness, by name Subbathal had let in evidence, in favour of the petitioners in I.A.No.650 of 2004. 13. It is also noted that the trial Court had also recorded that there is no documentary evidence marked in favour of the petitioners. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Dharapuram, dated 2.4.2008, made in I.A.No.650 of 2004, in O.S.No.132 of 2004, is erroneous and illegal, as alleged by the petitioners. In such view of the matter, the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.