(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, prays to set aside the order and Decreetal order made in I.A.No.2 of 2019 in O.S.No.402 of 2006, dated 02/01/2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chengalpet.)

1. Challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chengalpet, in I.A.No.2 of 2019 in O.S.No.402 of 2006, dated 02/01/2026, the revision petitioners / plaintiffs have filed this Civil Revision petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the plaintiffs have established their title over 10 acres of the suit properties described in the schedule, comprised in old Survey Nos. 1/7B and 1/7C. The proposed parties have purchased house plots in the same survey numbers and therefore they are necessary parties to the proceedings. However, the trial court dismissed the application holding that there are no correlating documents to connect the old survey numbers with the present new survey numbers. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the plaintiffs have title over the suit properties based on sale deeds of the year 1983, and as on date the suit properties remains vacant land. Recently, the proposed parties have claimed that they purchased house plots in the said property, and therefore the plaintiffs filed the application to implead them as defendants 10 to 85 as necessary parties to the proceedings.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents / proposed parties raised objection stating that the plots purchased by them are totally different from the suit properties. No correlating document has been filed by the plaintiffs to show that old Survey Nos. 1/7B and 1/7C correspond to the new Survey Nos. 1/1A, 1/1B, 1/1C, 1/1D, 1/1E and 1/1F.

5. Admittedly, the proposed parties have purchased the plots after formation of layout in the new survey numbers. As observed by the trial court, the assignment stands in the name of Venkataraman, the vendor of the plaintiffs, only to an extent of 5 acres, as per the statement filed by one of the defendants.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that several proceedings are pending challenging the orders of the revenue authorities. The plaintiffs claims right over the properties based on two sale deeds, one from Venkataraman and another from Murugan, relating to old Survey Nos. 1/7B and 1/7C. Now the properties have been subdivided and new survey numbers have been allotted.

7. Even in the plaint schedule, only the old survey numbers are mentioned and not the new survey numbers. The proposed parties have purchased the properties based on the new survey numbers. Therefore, the plaintiffs ought to establish by proper documents that old Survey Nos. 1/7B and 1/7C correspond to the new survey numbers in which the proposed parties have purchased plots.

8. As per the memo filed by the Advocate Commissioner, no correlating document was produced before the revenue officials at the time of inspection. Unless the plaintiffs produces documents to satisfy the court that the old survey numbers correspond to the new survey numbers, the proposed parties cannot be impleaded. The observation made by the trial court in this regard does not require interference.

9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

10. However, liberty is granted to the plaintiffs to amend the plaint by including the new survey numbers along with proper correlating documents, and the parties are at liberty to contest the matter in the manner known to law.