THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4507 OF 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 07.07.2008, in I.A.No.2288 of 2008 in O.S.No.221 of 2008, on the file of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the petition, under Order I Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by the petitioner, to implead her as defendant No.2 in the Original Suit and consequently, to direct respondent No.1/plaintiff to carry out the amendment in the cause title of the Original Suit to incorporate her name as defendant No.2, was dismissed. 2. Heard. 3. The petitioner herein filed the present application on the ground that she is absolutely necessary and proper party to the Original Suit, and that if she is not added as a party to the said suit, it will definitely have an impact on her title and entitlement to the suit schedule property and that, no effective judgment could be passed in the suit. 4. The primary object of enacting Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, provision is to bring before the court, at one and the same time, all the persons interested in the dispute so that all the controversies in the suit may be finally determined once and for all in the presence of all the parties without delay, inconvenience and expenses of several actions, trials and inconclusive adjudication. The provision thus confers wide discretion on the court to meet with every case of defect of parties and is not affected by the action of the plaintiff to bring the necessary parties on record. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner in trial Court has executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of respondent No.2 empowering inter alia to sell away the schedule property. Even the brother of the petitioner, respondent No.1 herein, executed an Agreement of Sale - cum - General Power of Attorney, dated 07.12.2007, in favour of respondent No.2 herein. Thereafter, respondent No.1 herein filed the present Original Suit against respondent No.2 for cancellation of the said agreement of sale executed by him. 5. The petitioner is not disputing about the execution of General Power of Attorney by her in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff. Except saying that she is absolutely necessary and proper party to the suit, there is no other allegation mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the petition as to why her impleading as a party to the suit is imperative. The allegation is that respondent No.1 colluded with respondent No.2/defendant in the suit. The issue to be adjudicated in the suit is whether the document executed by respondent No.1/plaintiff in favour of respondent No.2/defendant in the suit is a usufructory mortgage or an agreement of sale. So long as the General Power of Attorney executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent No.1 is not in dispute, there is no necessity for the petitioner to come on record. Even in the absence of the petitioner, the issue in the suit can be resolved. Furthermore, the petitioner already filed O.S.No.879 of 2008 for partition and separate possession of certain property including the present suit schedule property. That is the reason why the trial Court rightly dismissed the application. Therefore, there are no grounds to set aside the impugned order. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J September 30, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4507 OF 2008 Between: Fouzia Ilyas .....PETITIONER AND Shaik Abdul Majeed and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4507 OF 2008 September 30, 2010