Judgment :- 1. Animadverting upon the order dated 02.01.2012 passed by the learned District Judge, The Nilgiris, Ootacamund in I.A.No.195 of 2011 in A.S.No.7 of 2011, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. A summation and summarisation of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision would run thus: (i) The respondents 2 to 4/plaintiffs filed the suit O.S.No.68 of 2004 seeking the following reliefs: To pass a judgment and decree a) for possession of the lands more fully described in the schedule below. b) payment of Rs.89,600/- only with interest thereon at 12% per annum from the date of suit till payment. c) payment of future damages at the rate of Rs.100/-per day from the date of suit till the date of delivery of (end of the page No.5 in original) possession and for costs (extracted as such) as against Balakrishnan, the revision petitioner herein. After full contest, the suit was decreed. (ii) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment, the said Balakrishnan preferred appeal in A.S.No.7 of 2011. During the pendency of the appeal, I.A.No.195 of 2011 was filed seeking the following reliefs:-to implead the above said K.Rudharappa, son of Late Kincha Gowder as proposed second appellant in the above appeal and his name and address are given here under and his presence before the Hon'ble court may necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudication upon and settle all questions involved in the above appeal," (extracted as such) figuring as first petitioner and Rudhrappa as the proposed 2nd petitioner. (iii) The respondents 2 to 4/ plaintiffs filed counter resisting the application. Whereupon, after hearing both sides, the first appellate court dismissed the application. (iv) Challenging and impugning the said order of dismissal, this revision has been filed on various grounds. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would put forth and set forth his arguments, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus: No doubt, the said Rudhrappa was examined as DW4 on the defendant-Balakrishnan's side during trial. However, Rudhrappa was not added as eo-nomine defendant. According to Balakrishnan, the said Rudharappa is also having equal interest along with Balakrishnan in the suit property and there should not be any misunderstanding at a subsequent period of time between Balakrishnan and Rudhrappa relating to the contesting of the matter or prosecuting the appeal. However, Rudhrappa was not added as eo-nomine defendant. According to Balakrishnan, the said Rudharappa is also having equal interest along with Balakrishnan in the suit property and there should not be any misunderstanding at a subsequent period of time between Balakrishnan and Rudhrappa relating to the contesting of the matter or prosecuting the appeal. Hence, with that in mind, the said Balakrishnan and Rudhrappa joined together and filed the application under I.A.No.195 of 2011 and it is not the intention of either Balakrishnan or Rudhrappa to have a fresh trial. The said Rudhrappa wants to argue the appeal along with Balakrishnan and nothing more and such a factor would not in any way prove to be detrimental to the interest of the plaintiffs, if at all the plaintiffs are having a case of their own. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would pray for setting aside the order passed by the court below. 5. In a bid to torpedo and extirpate the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the revision petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4/plaintiffs would submit thus: Not even vakalat was filed on behalf of the said Rudhrappa before the appellate court in I.A.No.195 of 2011. During trial, the said Rudhrappa was examined as DW4 and his deposition is referred to in the impugned order of the appellate court to the effect that Rudhrappa was examined as DW4 on the side of Balakrishnan and at that time he would unambiguously and unequivocally, pulling no punches depose that after the death of his father, the tenancy would be binding upon Balakrishnan his brother. As such, he would canvass the case to the effect that it was Balakrishnan, who had interest in the suit property. When such is the position, there cannot be any second thought over the issue that Rudhrappa is having no interest in the suit property and in such a case, his claim to contest the appeal would be next to nothing and it would be a well-neigh impossibility also. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether the said Rudhrappa should be added as one of the appellants along with Balakrishnan in this factual matrix? 7. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether the said Rudhrappa should be added as one of the appellants along with Balakrishnan in this factual matrix? 7. A mere poring over and perusal of the order of the appellate court would reveal that before the lower court, there was no prayer relating to non-joinder of necessary parties. At this juncture, I would like to re-collect and call-up Order I Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it is extracted here under for ready reference: Order I – Parties to suits Rule 9 – Misjoinder and non-joinder– No suit shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and the Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it: [Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to non-joinder of a necessary party]. Here at the earliest point of time, no such plea was taken. However, adding fuel to the fire, DW4 himself candidly and categorically in his deposition would submit that after the death of his father the original tenant, the tenancy was continued in his brother's Balakrishnan name and the lease amount also was paid in his name after his father's death. 8. The only apprehension now in the mind of the said Rudhrappa as put forth by the Advocate for Balakrishnan was that at the later point of time, Rudhrappa should not prima facie think and find fault with Balakrishnan that he did not defend the case or prosecute the appeal successfully. 9. I would like to clarify that the plaintiffs did choose to implead only Balakrishnan, who has been contesting the matter and in support of him the said Rudhrappa examined himself as DW4. In such a case, there is no bar for Rudhrappa to be with his brother Balakrishnan and also give suitable instructions to Balakrishnan's advocate also to argue the appeal. However, I do not think at the first appellate stage, Rudhrappa also to be allowed to figure himself as one of the appellants, and even without he being as one of the appellants, his purpose could rightly be got served by the aforesaid procedure. 10. Accordingly, I could see no merit in this revision and the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 10. Accordingly, I could see no merit in this revision and the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.