Judgment 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 17.12.2012 passed in Unnumbered I.A., of 2012 in O.S.No.48 of 2012 by the learned District Judge, Karur. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The epitome and the long and the short of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus: The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would echo the cri de coeur and heart burns of his client to the effect that his client filed an application in Unnumbered I.A., of2012, seeking the following relief: "For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to implead the petitioner/proposed 4th Defendant, being M/s. VKA Polymers Pvt. Ltd., as Defendant no.4 in the suit and thereby render justice." (extracted as such) on the main ground that the revision petitioner is having interest in the technical know how for manufacturing of long lasting insecticide incorporated mosquito nets. However, the lower Court without even numbering the said application, returned it with the following observations: "RETURNED: 1. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.48/2012 for granting decree for the relief of Mandatory Injunction directing the second defendant by accepting the fresh samples of the plaintiff's product for conducting the chemical analysis with the third defendant and also filed petitions in I.A.No.310/2012 and 311/2012. This proposed petitioner filed this petition to implead him in the suit and as well as in the petitions. To decide the point in issues in the suit and as well as in the I.A., the proposed party is not a necessary party. 2. Blanks to be filled up. Under the above circumstances, how this petition is maintainable? Returned: Time 10 days." (extracted as such) Whereupon, it was represented by the revision petitioner by elaborately explaining the reasons for having filed such unnumbered I.A. However, the lower Court refused to entertain the said application. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed on various grounds. 5. According to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, his client is already armed with the order of the learned District Judge, Karur, passed in I.A.No.153 of 2012 in O.S.No.33 of 2012 dated 10.08.2012. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed on various grounds. 5. According to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, his client is already armed with the order of the learned District Judge, Karur, passed in I.A.No.153 of 2012 in O.S.No.33 of 2012 dated 10.08.2012. However, the plaintiff namely Shobikaa Impex Pvt. Ltd., - the first respondent herein, filed the suit in O.S.No.48 of 2012 as against the defendants 2 and 3 without adding the revision petitioner. If the proceedings in that suit, are allowed to go further in the absence of the revision petitioner, then that would certainly prejudice his interest. 6. Whereas the learned Counsel for the first respondent, in a bid to torpedo and pulverise the arguments of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, would submit that the suit in O.S.No.48 of 2012 is focussed as against the respondents 2 to 4 herein seeking the following relief: "(a) mandatory injunction directing the 2nd defendant in accepting the fresh samples of the Plaintiff's product and conduct the chemical analysis with the 3rd defendant and other neutral WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION PES recommended labs namely M/s. TUV SUD SOUTH ASIA Pvt. Ltd., NO.A.151/152, 2nd C Main, II Stage, Peenya Industrial Estate, Bangalore - 560058. India and SGS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, Plot No.28B/1(SP), & 28B/2 (SP), Opp., to State Bank of India, Second Main Road, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Ambattur, CHENNAI -600 058. India and take on record of the same within a week from today and process the application dated 22-3-2012 and issue conditional certificate;" (extracted as such) and in such a case, the question of impleading a third party would not arise. 7. The point for consideration is as to whether the lower Court was justified in simply returning the said I.A., with the aforesaid observations? The Point: 8. In the interest of Audi alter am par tem, the Court is expected to number the said application subject to maintainability and after hearing both sides, it is open for the Court to pass any suitable order leaving the aggrieved party to approach the higher forum concerned. But, in this case, the lower Court without even numbering the I.A., and without specifying any reason for such observation to the effect that the revision petitioner is not a necessary party, returned the said application. 9. But, in this case, the lower Court without even numbering the I.A., and without specifying any reason for such observation to the effect that the revision petitioner is not a necessary party, returned the said application. 9. Wherefore, I do not want to elaborate more on that. Accordingly, the following direction is issued: The lower Court shall do well to see that the said application is numbered if it is otherwise in order and after hearing all concerned in the said I.A, is expected to pass suitable orders as per law untrammeled or uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court. 10. Wherefore, the point is answered accordingly. 11. On balance, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.