THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.920 OF 2011 Dated: 20.04.2011 Between: Padmara Veedhi Patha Ganganamma Gudi Alaya Committee, Eluru, rep. by its Secretary Katuri Venkateswara Rao. … Petitioner And 1. Eluru Padmara Veedhi Gangamma Mahalakshmamma Ammavarla Devalaya Abhivruddhi Sangham, Eluru,rep. By its Chief Secretary M. Rama Krishna Dasu., And another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.920 OF 2011 ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 11.02.2011 in I.A.No.644 of 2010 in O.S.No.196 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru. The 1st respondent herein filed the said suit for injunction restraining the 2nd respondent herein from renovating Gangamma Temple situated in Western Street, Eluru, alleging that the renovation work was taken up by collecting donations from the devotees without obtaining the consent of the registered body of the temple. Pending the suit, the Revision petitioner which claims to be a committee constituted by the devotees with the object of developing the temple, filed I.A.No.644 of 2010 under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. for impleadment. It was pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the application that the office bearers of the plaintiff society were acting against the interest of the temple and the suit was filed to cause obstruction to the improvement and development of the temple. It is further alleged that the suit was filed against the fictitious society by creating false documents. While alleging that the suit itself was collusive and it was nothing but abuse of process of the Court, the Revision petitioner wanted to get itself impleaded as defendant No.2 so as to contest the suit. It was also pleaded that the revision petitioner which is a society formed by the devotees of the Goddess has substantial interest to develop the temple in question which is very ancient and it is a proper and necessary party to the suit so as to bring the true facts to the notice of the Court. The plaintiff opposed the said petition and the Court below, after hearing both the parties, by order dated 11.02.2011 dismissed the application. Hence the present Revision Petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. Even according to the Revision petitioner, the suit is filed by the Managing Committee of the temple, however its grievance appears to be that the Managing Committee was acting against the interest of the temple. As rightly observed by the Court below, it is always open to the revision petitioner to work out the appropriate remedy as available under law for redressal of their grievance against the Managing Committee. The suit is admittedly a suit for injunction simplicitor and the allegations were made only against the sole defendant. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below opined that the revision petitioner was neither proper nor necessary party for deciding the real controversy between the parties. Such a discretionary order which was made on application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case warrants no interference by this Court. It is also brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the main suit was decreed ex parte by the Court below on 15.3.2011 itself i.e., even before the Revision petition came up for admission before this Court. Viewed from any angle, I am of the opinion that the interference by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is unwarranted. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 20.04.2011 gbs