Judgment :- 1. The Civil Revision Petitioners/Petitioners/Plaintiffs have filed the present Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 07.12.2009 in I.A.No.196 of 2009 in O.S.No.383 of 2008 passed by the Learned Principal District Munsif, Erode. 2. The trial Court, while passing order in I.A.No.196 of 2009 dated 07.12.2009, has, inter alia, observed that when the suit came up for trial in the list, the Revision Petitioners/Plaintiffs have projected this petition to implead the proposed parties stating that they have indulged in unlawful activities. Also, the trial Court has further opined that the cause of action mentioned in the Plaint is that on 17.06.2008 the 5th Respondent came and unlawfully threatened the Revision Petitioners/Plaintiffs to form the cart track in the suit properties and moreover, on 01.09.2008, the proposed parties came and obliterated the physical features that exist on the suit property and therefore, this Court finds that both the cause of action on the Respondents 1 to 5 and the proposed parties are entirely different and that cannot be clubbed together by allowing this petition etc. and resultantly, dismissed the application for impleading the proposed parties with costs. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners/Petitioners/ Plaintiffs submits that the order of the trial Court, in dismissing the I.A.No.196 of 2009 filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of Civil Procedure Code to implead the proposed parties as Defendants, are contrary to law, manifestly illegal. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners/Plaintiffs contends that the trial Court, while dismissing the I.A.No.196 of 2009 on technicalities, has overlooked an important fact that since the proposed parties are impleaded, the Petitioners will file an Amendment Application as per Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code. 5. Lastly, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners/Plaintiffs that the trial Court ought to have allowed I.A.No.196 of 2009 so as to put an end to the dispute relating to the suit property once and for all without harping on technicalities. 6. A perusal of the Plaint filed by the Revision Petitioners/ Petitioners/Plaintiffs shows that the Revision Petitioners have prayed for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the 5th Defendant, his men or his agents from anyway interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the Revision Petitioners/Plaintiffs. 7. 6. A perusal of the Plaint filed by the Revision Petitioners/ Petitioners/Plaintiffs shows that the Revision Petitioners have prayed for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the 5th Defendant, his men or his agents from anyway interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the Revision Petitioners/Plaintiffs. 7. Before the trial Court, in the suit, the 5th Defendant has filed a detailed Written Statement, among other things, mentioning that as per Section 14 of the Land Encroachment Act, if a Government poramboke land has been encroached upon, in that no relief can be claimed by anyone as against the Government and further, the suit filed by the Revision Petitioners/Plaintiffs is not maintainable. Added further, the laying of Thar Road by the 5th Defendant in the interest of the welfare of the public cannot be stalled by the Revision Petitioners/ Plaintiffs in filing the present suit. 8. In the affidavit in I.A.No.196 of 2009, the Revision Petitioners/ Petitioners/Plaintiffs have averred that they have obtained an interim order of injunction in I.A.No.646 of 2008 against the 5th Respondent/ 5 th Defendant restraining him, his men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The suit is pending trial before the trial Court. 9. It is the plea of the Petitioners/Plaintiffs that the 5th Respondent/5th Defendant and its hench men, the proposed parties on 01.09.2008 has come into the suit properties and obliterated the physical features and cut the standing trees, besides destroying the thatched roofs of the house and scolded in filthy words causing mental agony and torture. A complaint before the Perundurai Police in Crime No.776 of 2008 has been lodged by the Revision Petitioners/Plaintiffs and a criminal case is registered against the proposed parties. On that basis, the Petitioners have sought for impleading the proposed parties as necessary parties to the suit as well as in I.A.No.646 of 2008. 10. In the counter filed by the proposed parties in I.A.No.196 of 1999, it is denied that on 01.09.2008 they have neither entered into the suit property nor obliterated the physical features and cut down the standing trees and destroyed the thatched roofs of the house and scolded in filthy words and caused mental agony etc. In fact, the 6th Respondent/proposed parties on 03.08.2008 removed some obstacles in the panchayat pathway. Therefore, the proposed parties are unnecessary parties to the proceedings. 11. In fact, the 6th Respondent/proposed parties on 03.08.2008 removed some obstacles in the panchayat pathway. Therefore, the proposed parties are unnecessary parties to the proceedings. 11. The counter of the 6th Respondent/proposed party has been adopted by the Respondents 7 to 13. 12. It is not in dispute that the Revision Petitioners/Plaintiffs have obtained the relief of interim injunction in I.A.No.646 of 2008 as against the 5th Respondent/5 th Defendant. The stand of the Revision Petitioners/Plaintiffs is denied by the proposed parties to the effect that on 01.09.2008 they neither entered into the suit property nor obliterated physical features etc., the 7th Respondent/proposed party has stated that he has removed some obstacles in panchayat pathway on 03.08.2008 which act is nothing but, bona fide one affecting no one. 13. Further, this Court also is of the view that, without impleading the proposed parties as Defendants in the main suit, the trial Court can dispose of the main suit and in that view of the matter, the proposed parties are neither necessary parties nor proper parties to determine the controversies involved between the parties to the litigation. 14. In view of the fact that the Revision Petitioners/Plaintiffs has already obtained an order of interim injunction in I.A.No.646 of 2008 and when the main suit itself has been filed against the 5th Respondent/5th Defendant for the relief of permanent injunction and that apart, when the proposed parties have denied that they neither entered into the suit property on 01.09.2008 nor obliterated the physical features etc. and also the 7th Respondent has stated that on 03.08.2008 he has removed the obstacles in the panchayat pathway based on a bona fide intention, these are all factual matters will have to be gone into by the trial Court at the time of conduct of the trial of the main case. 15. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners /Petitioners/Plaintiffs informs this Court that the trial is yet to begin in the main suit. 15. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners /Petitioners/Plaintiffs informs this Court that the trial is yet to begin in the main suit. Before ever the trial has commenced in the trial Court in main suit in O.S.No.383 of 2008 which has only been filed for the relief of permanent injunction as against the 5th Respondent/5th Defendant, his men, agents etc., this Court, without delving deep into the merits of the matter and also taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case in a cumulative fashion, comes to an inescapable conclusion that I.A.No.196 of 2009 filed by the Petitioners is only an otiose one. Resultantly, the Civil Revision Petition fails. 16. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.