HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P. NO. 5400 OF 2009 Thursday, the Twentieth day of January, Two Thousand and Eleven Between Padma Venkayya Raju Petitioner AND Venguta Venkata Tirpuramba and another Respondent ORAL ORDER: Heard. Though notice is served none appeared for the respondents. The application filed by the petitioner in I.A. No.33 of 2009 in O.S. No. 1539 of 2007 under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment as party defendant in the suit as well as in the I.A. so as to enable him to defend his rights, was dismissed by the impugned order dated 1.6.2009 passed by the learned I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, against which the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. The learned Judge dismissed the said application on the ground that the petitioner is a third party to the suit. Rejecting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is neighbour to the plaint schedule property and his rights are violated and to defend his rights, his presence is required, the learned Judge observed that even if the allegations are correct, he is not going to get any relief in the suit. Learned Judge further observed that his grievance can be agitated in any legal proceedings instituted by him, but he is not entitled to be added as a party. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in fact the first respondent herein earlier filed a suit OS No. 3531 of 2004 on the file of the III Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam for permanent injunction against the Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam as well as the petitioner herein in respect of the same schedule property. It is stated that the said suit was dismissed for default on 4.12.2006. Thereafter, the respondent has chosen to file similar suit for injunction against the Municipal Corporation alone seeking permanent injunction against the very same property. It is the case of the petitioner that the Municipal Corporation initiated action on a complaint filed by the petitioner and, therefore, he is a proper and necessary party to defend his rights. The petitioner being a third party, if added as a respondent No.2, he may not be able to get the relief. But the question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is a necessary party in order to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settled all the questioned involved in the suit. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the defacto complainant and his rights are being affected in his absence and, as such, he was rightly made a party in the earlier suit, which was dismissed for default and later the respondent has chosen to file the present suit and, therefore, he is a proper and necessary party. Consequently, I.A. No.33 of 2009 filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the order impugned. No order as to costs ___________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah January 20, 2011 MAS