THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3390 OF 2007 DT.17.06.2010 Between: M/s.Sripad Securities Pvt.Ltd., represented by its Authorised agent V.Srinivas, Pakasam District. ………Petitioner Vs. Moturmarri Sudheer and another. …………..Respondents. O R D E R: Heard Sri V.L.N.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner who is plaintiff in the suit filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the order dated 3.7.2007 passed in I.A.No.953 of 2007 in O.S.No.19 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Chirala, in allowing the application filed by the third party petitioner, seeking to implead herself as second defendant in the suit. The suit was filed for recovery of the amount based on khata debt. The court below allowed the said application on the ground that since the whereabouts of the husband of the proposed party are not known from the year 2004 itself and if the plaintiff proceeds with against the properties of the second respondent for the realization of the debt, there will be no chance for her to stall the decree and if she is given opportunity to contest the suit representing her husband, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner/plaintiff. After hearing both the learned counsel and on perusing the material placed before this court, it is seen that admittedly, the proposed party is no otherthan the wife of the first respondent/defendant. Hence, I am of the view that instead of passing one sided judgment, the court below rightly allowed the said application to enable the proposed party to question the genuineness of the suit transaction. Impleading the second respondent herein enables the parties to have a judgment on all counts and from all sides, which ultimately would lead to proper assistance to the court in coming to a correct conclusion. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the order of the court below. The civil revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO J., Dt.17.06.2010 tjs