ORDER : D. Krishnakumar, J. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the fair and decretal order made in I.A. No.329 of 2007 in O.S. No.83 of 2007, dated 5.2.2008, on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur. 2. According to the Petitioners, the Petitioners have filed a suit in O.S.No.93 of 2007 for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction against the respondents 32 to 34/defendants. In the aforesaid suit, an application was filed by the respondents 1 to 31 to implead themselves as proposed defendants under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) and Section 151 of C.P.C and also to raise their objections. They are objecting the plaintiffs to file the suit as representatives of their village (filed the suit as residents of Meivazhi).The said application to implead themselves as party in the suit was allowed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by that, the petitioners herein/plaintiffs have filed the present Civil Revision Petition before this Court for the relief stated supra. 3. According to the Petitioners, the respondents 1 to 31 are not at all necessary parties in the suit. The prayer sought for by the plaintiffs is only against respondents 32 to 34 and no relief has been sought for against the respondents 1 to 31. Since no relief was sought for against the respondents 1 to 31, allowing of the said I.A application is contrary to law. 4. According to the respondents 1 to 31, that they have filed the application to implead themselves as parties in the suit, wherein they have categorically stated that the revision petitioners/plaintiffs are not representing the residents of Meivazhi Salai village. Therefore the respondents 1 to 31/proposed defendants are disputing the plaintiffs/revision petitioners locu-standi to file the said suit in their representative capacity. Hence they are all necessary parties in the suit. In view of the above, no prejudice would be caused to the revision petitioners/plaintiffs in allowing the said application. 5. According to the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 33 and 34, the present suit filed by the revision petitioners/plaintiffs is the subject-matter of the encroachment in the 'Parai Poramboke' and the said land belongs to the Revenue Department. Therefore in the light of the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act as well as Government orders, the revision petitioners can very well approach the authorities concerned to seek their relief. 6. Therefore in the light of the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act as well as Government orders, the revision petitioners can very well approach the authorities concerned to seek their relief. 6. In view of the submissions made by both the parties, the point for consideration in this C.R.P is whether the respondents 1 to 31 are necessary parties in the aforesaid suit? 7. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 31 would submit that the respondents 1 to 31/proposed defendants raise a specific averments that the plaintiffs/revision petitioners have no locu-standi to file the suit in the representative capacity of the residents of Meivazhi Salai. Therefore it can be decided only at the time of trial whether the respondents 1 to 31/proposed defendants are all necessary parties or not. The trial Court has also considered the contentions of the Petitioners as well as respondents and allowed the application on payment of cost of Rs.200/- each payable by respondents 1 to 31 to the plaintiffs/revision petitioners on or before 19.2.2008. 8. At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Devaki Thiyagarajan v. Ahamed reported in 2015(4) CTC 293 , wherein, this Court has held as follows: "54. In so far as the present Appeal is concerned, we would like to place it on record that the Principle of lis pendens embodied in Section 52 of the T.P. Act being a Principle of Public Policy, no question of good faith or bona fide arises. The principle underlying Section 52 is that a litigating party is exempted from taking Notice of a title acquired during the pendency of the litigation. The mere pendency of a Suit does not prevent one of the parties from dealing with the property constituting the subject matter of the Suit. The Section only postulates a condition that the alienation will in no manner affect the rights of the other party under any Decree, which may be passed in the Suit unless the property was alienated with the permission of the Court. 62. The Object of the Order 1, Rule 10 (2), C.P.C to implead a third party to the Suit is that the dispute in the Suit would be resolved in the presence of all, in Order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. 63. 62. The Object of the Order 1, Rule 10 (2), C.P.C to implead a third party to the Suit is that the dispute in the Suit would be resolved in the presence of all, in Order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. 63. Under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C, a party would become necessary party or proper party if he is having any interest over the subject matter of adjudication under the Suit and then he can be impleaded. 71. As afore-stated in the earlier paragraphs, the Respondents 2 to 5/Plaintiffs 1 to 4 have not alienated the Suit property in favour of the Appellant/proposed 5th Plaintiff with the permission of the Court. However, as argued by Mr. R.Thiyagarajan, since the Respondents 2 to 5/Plaintiffs 1 to 4 have allegedly sold the Suit property in favour of the Appellant/proposed 5th plaintiff, they might not show much interest or due diligence in conducting the trial of the Suit. Even if it is presumed that the Appellant/proposed 5th Plaintiff is not included as one of the co- Plaintiffs to prosecute the Suit as against the Respondents 6 to 9, she would definitely approach the Court of law with a new Suit, which would pave way for the multiplication of proceedings and only for the purpose of avoidance of any other litigation for the same subject matter, we have, therefore, decided that the Appellant/proposed 5th Plaintiff could be allowed to be impleaded as the 5th Plaintiff. 71(a). Further, we do not see any collusiveness between the Appellant/proposed 5th Plaintiff and the Respondents 2 to 5/Plaintiffs 1 to 4. Section 52 of T.P. Act is a substantive law, whereas the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of C.P.C., is a procedural law. Even though the Respondents 2 to 5/Plaintiffs 1 to 4 have not obtained prior permission to alienate the property, which is directly and substantially in question in the present Suit, Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of C.P.C., empowers this Court to implead any party at any stage of the proceedings either as Plaintiff or Defendant upon or without any Application of either party, whose presence appears to be necessary in Order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the Suit." 9. Therefore, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the respondents 1 to 31/proposed defendants are also necessary parties in the present suit and they can also participate in the suit proceedings, in order to decide the real issue that arose in the suit. In view of the above reasonings, this Court comes to the conclusion that the trial Court, considering all the above aspects, have rightly allowed the impleading application. Hence this Court does not warrant any interference in the order of the Court below. Thus the revision fails and the same deserves dismissal. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.