JUDGMENT : 1. The revision petitioner/plaintiff has filed this Civil Revision Petition challenging the order dated 01.04.2009 passed by the learned III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dismissing I.A.No.13120 of 2006 filed by her to implead the 5th and 6th respondents herein as 5th and 6th defendants in the suit O.S.No.4615 of 2004. 2. The parties to this Revision are referred to in the same array as in the suit. 3. The facts in a nutshell for the effective disposal of this Civil Revision Petition is narrated herein below : The plaintiff had purchased an undivided share in the land on which the construction was put up by M/s.Sree Lakshmi Builders Private Limited, whose promoters are respondents 3 and 4 under a Sale Deed dated 21.08.1995. The plaintiff had, even prior to the Sale Deed, entered into a Construction Agreement dated 24.05.1995 with the Builder for construction of a 850 sq.ft. flat in the First Floor of the building and thereafter, an additional 80 sq.ft. was also added and the plaintiff entered into a supplementary Construction Agreement dated 30.03.1996. Therefore, the plaintiff became the owner of an extent of 930 sq.ft. in the First Floor along with the proportionate undivided share. The plaintiff got her Property Tax assessed and her flat was assigned Door No.8/2/3. She has been in possession of the flat since her purchase by letting it out to the tenants. 4. While so, an Auction Notice was posted by the defendants 1 and 2 in the building stating that the flat bearing Door No.8/2/7 in the First Floor measuring 930 sq.ft would be auctioned on 26.06.2004 for the amounts borrowed by the defendants 3 and 4. Despite the plaintiff explaining to the 1st defendant that she had nothing to do with the mortgage and showing the entire documents standing in her name followed by a Lawyer's Notice dated 18.06.2004, the 1st defendant followed it up with yet another Auction Notice, this time intimating that the sale would be held on 16.09.2004. Despite the plaintiff explaining to the 1st defendant that she had nothing to do with the mortgage and showing the entire documents standing in her name followed by a Lawyer's Notice dated 18.06.2004, the 1st defendant followed it up with yet another Auction Notice, this time intimating that the sale would be held on 16.09.2004. This constrained the plaintiff to file the suit O.S.No.4615 of 2004 on the file of the learned III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, for the following relief : “granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 or their agents, servants, officers, or anybody claiming under their authority from bringing the schedule mentioned property for auction on 16.09.2004 or on any other date for realization of any amounts due by the 3rd and 4th defendants.” 5. The 1st defendant had inter alia resisted the suit by contending that the documents placed by the plaintiff does not relate to the property mortgaged with them and that the plaintiff's property is different from the mortgage. They also contended that the plaintiff had not impleaded the purchaser of the flat alleged to have been sold by the defendants 3 and 4. They denied as false the statement of the plaintiff that it was her property that was being bought for auction. The 1st defendant has gone onto state that the plaintiff has under the Sale Deed dated 21.08.1995 only purchased Flat No.8/2/3 and her Sale Deed would mention an undivided 930/4500th share, but they have gone onto state that except for 930 sq.ft mortgaged to them, there is no other flat having an undivided 930 sq.ft. After the plaintiff had filed her proof affidavit in lieu of the Chief examination and marked documents to prove her case, she filed the impugned application to implead the respondents 5 and 6 herein as defendants 5 and 6 in the suit. The reason adduced in the affidavit filed in support of the application was that on inspection of documents, the plaintiff had came to know that the respondents 3 and 4 had sold the mortgaged property to the defendants 5 and 6 and the Sale Deed in their favour mention about the mortgage in favour of the 1st defendant and that the defendants 5 and 6 were bound to clear the loan. In view of this undertaking given by the defendants 3 and 4 and their observance of this undertaking in a breach, the plaintiff sought to implead them. 6. The proposed parties opposed this application by inter alia contending that they are neither proper nor necessary parties to the suit. The learned III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, by order dated 01.04.2009, dismissed this application. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner has moved this revision. 7. Heard Mr. P. Seshadri, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr. C. Seethapathy learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 and 6 and perused the material available on record. 8. Mr. P. Seshadri, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would argue that the mortgage is only in respect of the property purchased by the respondents 5 and 6 and therefore, their presence is very essential. He would rely on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (dead) by L.R.s and others [1995) 2 SCC 326]. 9. Mr. C. Seethapathy learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 and 6 would counter the same by contending that they are neither proper nor necessary parties to the proceedings and would rely on the following Judgments in support of their arguments. (a) AIR 1953 SC 521 , Deputy Commissioner, Hardoi, In Charge Court of Wards, Bharawan Estate v. Rama Krishna Narain and others (b) 1996 (5) SCC 539 , Sarvinder Singh v. Dalip Singh and others (c) 2009 (1) CTC 411 , V. Ravi @ P.V. Ravi v. V. Balakrishnan and 10 others (d) AIR 1994 NOC 90 (Gauhati), Chhaganlal Jain and others v. Gauhati Municipal Corporation and others (e) (2018) 2 SCC 352 , Kanaklata Das and others v. Naba Kumar Das and others (f) (1994) 1 SCC 402 , New Redbank Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Kumkum Mittal and others (g) 1992 (2) SC 116, Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others 10. Heard the submissions, perused the records and the proof affidavit and documents filed by the plaintiff as P.W.1. 11. From the above, it is clear that the Mortgage Deed dated 25.09.1996 entered into between the 1st defendant and the defendants 3 and 4 was created with reference to the property subject matter of the Sale Deed dated 31.01.1996 in respect of Door No.8/2/7. 11. From the above, it is clear that the Mortgage Deed dated 25.09.1996 entered into between the 1st defendant and the defendants 3 and 4 was created with reference to the property subject matter of the Sale Deed dated 31.01.1996 in respect of Door No.8/2/7. The 1st defendant in their written statement has clearly admitted that the mortgage is not with reference to the property bearing D.No.8/2/3 which belongs to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also marked the Sale Deed and Construction Agreements in her favour, all of which are prior to the Mortgage Deed dated 25.09.1996 and over which the defendants 3 and 4 (mortgagor) had no right. The plaintiff can clearly establish her case through the documents filed by her and the suit is for a bare injunction in respect of the property belonging to the plaintiff which is not the subject matter of the Sale Deed dated 31.01.1996 in favour of the defendants 3 and 4 or the Mortgage Deed dated 25.09.1996 or the Sale Deed dated 06.07.1998 in favour of the respondents 5 and 6. Therefore, the respondents 5 and 6 are neither proper nor necessary parties to the suit. Though the learned III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, has erred in observing that it is Door No.8/2/3 in the First Floor which is the subject matter of the mortgage totaling overlooking the Written Statement of the 1st defendant that the mortgage is with reference Door No.8/3/7, the order dismissing the application is correct. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.