IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.143 of 2006 Between: Kovvuri Satyaprabha and others ..... PETITIONER(S) AND P.V.R.Trust Degree College, Kakinada, rep by its Secretary and Correspondent and others .....RESPONDENT(S) HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.143 of 2006 ORDER: Petitioners herein are the third parties who were sought to be impleaded as respondents in L.G.O.P.No.68 of 1998 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, on the filing of the applications at the instance of the petitioners therein. The main grievance of the petitioners is that having regard to the particulars of the property they are neither necessary nor proper parties for the proceedings before the Court below and thus the Court below erred in ordering their impleadment as respondents in the proceedings before it. Hence, this revision. Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record. Especially the affidavit filed in support of the I.A.No.393 of 2002 and also the other application, it has been stated that having regard to the subsequent events including the sale transactions of some other parties, the petitioners, being necessary and proper parties, are required to be added as parties to the proceedings. The Court below after taking into consideration the respective submissions allowed the same holding that they are necessary and proper parties to the proceedings before it. In view of the discretion exercised by the Court below, I do not find any merit warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that subsequent to the filing of this revision, the main O.P. itself was returned for presentation to the proper Court on the ground of want of jurisdiction. Yet, this revision does not become infructuous as the respondents can or may approach the proper Court for the purpose of deciding the case. ____________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J 15th July, 2010 CVRK