Judgment The revision Petitioner who is the plaintiff in the original suit in O.S.No.1236 of 2003 filed this revision Petition against the order, dated 23.07.2008 made in I.A.No.14742 of 2007 in the above suit. 2. For the sake of convenience, the plaintiff in the original suit is referred as revision Petitioner and third party/applicant in I.A.No.14742 of 2007 is referred as first respondent. The defendants 1 and 2 in the original suit are referred as respondents 2 and 3 hereafter. 3. The revision Petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.1236 of 2003 as against the respondents 2 and 3 and seeking the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit properties. In the above said plaint, the schedule of properties are given as under: SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the land situated at Thiruvanmiyur Village, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk, Chennai District, Chennai total extent of 4 acres 40 cents comprised in S.No.170/2 as mentioned below: vide boundaries:- North by Survey No.169 South by 75 cents of land belong to Padmini Chandrasekaran'sTrust West by Road; and East by Seashore And land comprised in S.No.99/8, full extent of 48 cents of lands, within the registration District of South Chennai and sub-Registration District of Saidapet. 4. In the above said suit, the respondents 2 and 3 have filed written statement and contesting the suit filed by the revision Petitioner. 5. During the pendency of the above said suit, the first respondent herein filed an application in I.A.No.14742 of 2007 under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code to implead the first respondent/proposed party as third defendant in the original suit. In the affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is averred that the main suit has been filed by the revision Petitioner against respondents 2 and 3 seeking the relief of permanent injunction. In the suit, the revision Petitioner wrongly stated in the plaint as if the old S.No.170 is now sub-divided as S.Nos.170/1,170/2, 170/3 and 170/7. According to the first respondent, an extent of one acre 23 cents in S.No.170/7 has been purchased by the first respondent from Mr. V. Muthukumarasamy and Mrs. Parvathy under a registered sale deed, dated 24.6.1999. But the revision Petitioner/Plaintiff filed the original suit against the second and third respondents, more particularly, in collusion with the second respondent in order to obtain a fraudulent decree. V. Muthukumarasamy and Mrs. Parvathy under a registered sale deed, dated 24.6.1999. But the revision Petitioner/Plaintiff filed the original suit against the second and third respondents, more particularly, in collusion with the second respondent in order to obtain a fraudulent decree. Since the first respondent also the absolute owner of the property, the revision Petitioner ought to have arrayed the first respondent as a party in the suit, since the first respondent is a proper and necessary party. Therefore prayed for to implead the first respondent as a party in the original suit. 6. The revision Petitioner/Plaintiff alone filed a counter in the above said application. In the above said counter, the revision Petitioner has stated that the revision Petitioner filed the original suit and seeking the relief of interim injunction against the respondents 2 and 3 and the trial Court has granted an order of interim injunction and made absolute in the interim application. Thereafter, the main suit was listed for trial and after a lapse of more than four years, the first respondent has filed the application to implead himself in the suit by contending that he had purchased of vacant land situated in S.No.170/7 from his vendors Mr. V. Muthukumarasamy and Mrs. Parvathy. According to the revision Petitioner, the total extent of old S.No. 170 totally 4 acre 40 cents and subsequently which was sub-divided as S.Nos. 170/1, 170/2, 170/3, 170/7 and 170/8. It is also averred in the counter that the first respondent failed to furnish the copy of the document relating to his property. Further, the first respondent has not specifically stated about the details of title of his vendors in S.No.170/7. The third respondent also claimed the same right in the interlocutory application in respect of the same S.No.170/7 which is now claimed by the first respondent. The third respondent also had not filed any document in this regard. Further, the first respondent has not produced any document relating to the issue whether he has been empowered to represent the company. The application has been filed by the first respondent belatedly with a view to delay the disposal of the suit and therefore prayed for to dismiss the above said application. 7. Further, the first respondent has not produced any document relating to the issue whether he has been empowered to represent the company. The application has been filed by the first respondent belatedly with a view to delay the disposal of the suit and therefore prayed for to dismiss the above said application. 7. The trial Court after hearing both sides, finally allowed the application on payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- to be paid in favour of the Secretary, District Legal Services Committee, City Civil Court, Chennai on or before 30.7.2008. Aggrieved over the above said order passed by the trial Court, the revision Petitioner, who is the plaintiff in the original suit preferred this revision Petition. 8. The revision Petitioner has stated in the affidavit filed in support of M.P.No.2 of 2012 that the first respondent herein has no semblance of any right over the property, only to grab the valuable property of the revision Petitioner, the application has been filed. Therefore the first respondent is neither a necessary or property party in the application. 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision Petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. Perused the entire materials on record including the affidavit filed by revision Petitioner to receive additional grounds sought for by the revision Petitioner. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the revision Petitioner mainly contended that the trial Court failed to consider the fact that there is collusion between the revision Petitioner and second respondent herein. Further this application to implead as a party in the suit is filed only to delay the proceedings for several years by false contention that the first respondent is entitled to the property in S.No.170/7. The learned counsel further submitted that in the alleged sale deed obtained by the first respondent dated 24.6.1999, it is stated therein that by a settlement deed No.2247/57, the land in question was settled on V. Muthukumarasamy and Parvathy by one K.K. Srinivasa Pillai, but not produced that document. Further the above said document does not relate to suit property and hence Muthukumarasamy has no title over the property in S.No.170/7 and he could not convey the same to the first respondent. Further, the revision Petitioner failed to furnish the copy of the above said document. Therefore prayed for to set aside the order passed by the trial Court. 11. Further, the revision Petitioner failed to furnish the copy of the above said document. Therefore prayed for to set aside the order passed by the trial Court. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that in the schedule of property in the plaint, the total extent is stated as four acres 40 cents comprised in S.No.170/2 and land comprised in S.No.99/8, an extent of 48 cents. The learned counsel further pointed out that in para 10 and 13 in the plaint, it is stated that S.No.170 now sub-divided as S. Nos. 170/1, 170/2, 170/3 and 170/7 and hence the schedule of properties and the averments made in other column in the plaint pleadings are differs. Further the learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that the revision Petitioner had purchased the property in S.No.170/7 measuring to an extent of one acre 23 cents from Mr. V. Muthukumarasamy and Mrs. Parvathy under a registered sale deed, dated 24.6.1996. Since the revision Petitioner included the above said S.No.170/7 in the plaint averments, the revision Petitioner is a proper and necessary party to the suit. 12. Admittedly, in the schedule of properties in the plaint, the revision Petitioner has not stated about the sub-division and only in other columns in the plaint, it is subsequently included. Further the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has submitted that with a false description of properties, the revision Petitioner is trying to interfere in the property belonging to the first respondent and therefore, the first respondent is a proper and necessary party to implead as a defendant. Whether the revision Petitioner has correctly given the description of properties in the plaint and whether the above said properties belongs to the revision Petitioner are all to be decided only after giving evidence on both sides. Further, the earlier title deed relating to the suit properties or other properties also to be decided only in the trial after considering the evidence on either side. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, the revision Petitioner has not properly described the properties in the schedule and in the pleadings. In the above said circumstances, no prejudice would be caused if the first respondent is impleaded as third defendant in the original suit as rightly held by the trial Court. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, the revision Petitioner has not properly described the properties in the schedule and in the pleadings. In the above said circumstances, no prejudice would be caused if the first respondent is impleaded as third defendant in the original suit as rightly held by the trial Court. The application cannot be rejected only on the ground of delay. The suit is pending before the trial Court for trial. Therefore no merits in the contention of the revision Petitioner. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the revision Petitioner mainly contended that the order of the trial Court is in a cryptic nature and therefore the above said order is liable to be set aside and remitted back to the trial Court for fresh consideration. In this connection, the learned counsel appearing for the revision Petitioner relied on a decision of this Court reported in 2013-1-L.W 929 (P.N. Krishnan vs. R. Shanmugaraj and others). A perusal of the above said decision reveals that the above said suit was filed in the year 2008 and the application for impleading filed in the year 2010 and the revision Petition has been filed in the year 2011 and an order of remand has been passed on 18.2.2013. But in the instant case, the suit was filed on 18.7.2003 and the application was filed on 23.7.2008 and the Civil Revision Petition was filed in the year 2009 and it is pending before this Court for more than five years. In the above said circumstances, if the matter is again remitted back to the trial Court, it will be prejudice to both the parties. Further the trial Court has considered both side submissions and correctly passed an order as the application is filed to implead the first respondent as third defendant in the suit, to have a fair adjudication on the subject-matter as the first respondent (proposed party) also will have to be heard on the issues. Further, the trial Court has considered the fact that the counter-objection filed by the revision Petitioner is also not having any justification for the same. The trial Court has also considered the fact that the respondents 2 and 3 did not file any counter in the above said application. Further, the trial Court has considered the fact that the counter-objection filed by the revision Petitioner is also not having any justification for the same. The trial Court has also considered the fact that the respondents 2 and 3 did not file any counter in the above said application. Only after considering all the above said facts, the trial Court has allowed the said application on payment of costs. Therefore the above said order of the trial Court is a well-reasoned order and there is no need to interfere with the above said finding of the trial Court. 14. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. Since the suit is pending for several years, the trial Court is directed to dispose the main suit within six months from the date of receipt of order. There is no order as to costs.