IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.NO.109 OF 2010 Date:15.03.2011 Between:- Public of 19th Ward Tirupati Municipality, rep.by M.Santha Kumar Reddy and another. ..Petitioners/petitioners/plaintiffs And Revalla Lokanadha Naidu .. Respondent/Respondent/defendant ORDER:- This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 22-10-2009 in I.A.No.77 of 2009 in O.S.No.64 of 2005 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Tirupati. 2. Heard. 3. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.64 of 2005 filed for declaration that the constructions made by the defendant in the plaint schedule property are effecting the rights of public at large including the plaintiffs, for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the constructions made in the plaint schedule property and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, followers, agents or anybody on his behalf from in any way making further constructions in the plaint schedule property. I.A.No.77 of 2009 was filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C.’) to permit the petitioners to add Ravilla Madhu as second defendant in the suit and it was dismissed. 4. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of petition that before filing the suit, the sole defendant has started construction and supervising the ongoing constructions, subsequently defendant in his statement stated that on going constructions were not belonging to him, that he did not mention the name of the person who was making constructions, that just before completion of the evidence of P.W.1, he gathered the details of the ownership of the site towards north of the plaint schedule property, which covers the construction by name Sinduri Kalyana Mandapam. Therefore, he is not a necessary and proper party. 5. Under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C., a person can be impleaded as a party to the suit for effective adjudication of the dispute involved and also to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. But at the same time, it must be shown that the proposed party has got some semblance of right over the plaint schedule property. The power to add a party under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order I C.P.C. may be exercised on either of two grounds (i) such person ought to have been joined either as a plaintiff or as a defendant, but is not so joined, or (ii) without his presence, the question involved in the suit cannot be decided finally and effectively. The suit is filed in a representative capacity against the defendant not to encroach the plaint schedule property, which is a pathway for ingress and egress of the public. The entire evidence is completed and suit is coming on for arguments. The suit is of the year 2005. At that stage, the present application was filed. Even the petition filed in support of the affidavit does not disclose that the proposed party has got some semblance of right over the plaint schedule property. It is only stated that the proposed party, who is the land owner, trespassed into the plaint schedule property, where the kalyana mandapam has been constructed. Nowhere it is stated that the proposed party was making constructions in the plaint schedule property. Therefore, he is not a necessary party. The trial Court rightly dismissed the petition. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 6. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 15th March, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.NO.109 OF 2010 Date:15.03.2011 AMD