ORDER : 1. The plaintiffs aggrieved by the impugned order of the Court below passed in I.A.No.1232 of 2014 in O.S.No.216 of 2011 have preferred this civil revision petition. 2. It is found that the suit has been laid by the revision petitioners/plaintiffs for demarcation of single house property under the registered Will dated 12.02.2008, and identified shown plots allotted areas to them and defendant and for further appropriate reliefs. The said suit is being contested by the first respondent/defendant. 3. It is found that at one stage of the matter, the suit ended in ex parte decree and it is found that at that stage of the matter, on the steps taken by the plaintiffs, it is found that the property involved in the matter has been identified and measured by the concerned officials and thereby the same had been sub-divided and it is the case of the defendant that the plaintiffs have also obtained Patta and electricity service connection and it is the further case of the defendant that the ex parte decree passed in the suit being set aside and in view of the above position, some developments having taken place in the suit property, according to him, the proposed parties detailed in the application, in I.A.No.1232 of 2014, are proper and necessary parties for the effectual and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the matter and accordingly preferred an application for impleademnt. The said application was resisted by the plaintiffs on the footing that it is for them to seek for impleadment of the proper and necessary parties and the defendants are not entitled to take steps to implead the parties in the suit preferred by them and further, it is the case of the plaintiffs that once the relief sought for in the plaint had been accomplished, there is no need for the impleadment of the proposed parties in the suit proceedings as prayed for by the defendant. 4. The Court below, on a consideration of the materials placed, found that only the proposed parties arrayed as respondents 2 to 4 are necessary to be impleaded and the other proposed parties arrayed as respondents 5 to 7 are not necessary to be impleaded in the suit proceedings and accordingly partly allowed the application preferred by the first respondent/defendant for impleadement. Impugning the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred. 5. Impugning the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred. 5. The same contentions as urged before the Court below are raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners in this civil revision petition also. However, considering the fact that some developments had occurred in the property concerned after the ex-parte decree has been passed and inasmuch as the ex-parte decree has now been set aside, it is found that as rightly put forth by the defendant, the property having been measured and sub-divided and Patta having also been obtained by the plaintiffs, it is seen that as determined by the Court below, the proposed respondents, namely, respondents 2 to 4 are proper and necessary parties for the effectual and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the matter. As regards the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the statuary notice has not been issued to them prior to their impleadment, the said issue could be gone into by the Court below during the course of trial. 6. In view of the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that the impugned order does not call for any interference from this Court. 7. Resultantly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.