THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 453 of 2010 Oral order: The petitioners-plaintiffs aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.2009, passed by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, allowing the application in I.A. No. 941 of 2009 in O.S. No. 174 of 2009, filed by the respondent No.1 herein praying to implead him as defendant No.4 in the suit, filed the present C.R.P. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs and perused the order under revision. Respondent No.1 to show that he is in possession of the suit schedule property, filed registered sale deed dated 24.08.2006, executed by defendant No.3, Shahzadia Bee and Nasreen Begum. He has also filed gift settlement deed dated 13.04.2006, said to have been executed by defendant No.3 in favour of his wife Nasreen Begum with the consent of Shahzadia Bee. Though the petitioner contended that said documents filed by the petitioner are not genuine and are fabricated, in that the gift deed showed only one house number while the sale deed showed two house numbers and this apart, the location and existence of rooms as shown in the plans appended to the documents are also different, the fact remains, the Court below felt that the genuineness or otherwise of the documents, can be gone into at the time of trial. Apart from the above two documents, respondent No.1 also filed copy of the permission granted by the Gram Panchayat, Kismathpur, for re-construction of house bearing No. 6-21 and 6-21/2. Though the suit house number is 6-20 while the house claimed by respondent No. 1 is 6-20/2 (old number), but since respondent No.1 claimed that the said property purchased by him formed part and parcel of the suit schedule property, even though the defendants in the written statement filed by them did not mention about the said sale made in favour of respondent No.1, but considering the documents produced by respondent No.1, the Court below felt that respondent No.1 has some interest in the suit house and that if in the event respondent No.1 is found to be the real owner, and in his absence if injunction is granted, he would be put to irreparable loss, held that he is a proper and necessary party, and he should be impleaded as party defendant so that he can defend himself, and I find no reason whatsoever to interfere therewith. The C.R.P. is devoid of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 12th March, 2010 KSR