HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3786 of 2010 Date 03.09.2010 Between: G.Sivaraju. ..... PETITIONER AND Katasani Ramalinga Reddy and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: None appeared The Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3786 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 20.07.2010 in I.A.No.2105 of 2008 in O.S.No. 19 of 2007 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit. Respondent No.1 filed the suit for recovery of certain amounts stated to have been borrowed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed the above mentioned I.A. seeking impleadment of respondent Nos.2 and 3 as defendants in the suit. The said application having been dismissed, the petitioner filed the present revision petition. At the hearing Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that from the contents of the pronote, based on which the suit is filed, it is quite evident that the money was borrowed in the name of respondent No.2 and, therefore, respondent No.2 and respondent No.3, who is the proprietor of respondent No.2, are necessary and proper parties to the suit. In my opinion on the facts of the present case, it is not necessary for the petitioner to seek impleadment of respondent Nos.2 and 3 because the petitioner is required to substantiate his plea with reference to the evidence available with him. If he is able to prove that he merely acted as an agent of respondent Nos.2 and 3, that will be enough to non suit the plaintiff. Under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, the discretion lies in the Court to implead or not a party. Unless the Court feels that the presence of a party is necessary for proper and effectual adjudication of the dispute, a request for impleadment cannot be accepted. On the facts of the case, the Court below was satisfied that for disposal of the suit, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are neither necessary nor proper parties. Having carefully considered the reasons assigned by the Court below, I am satisfied that the order does not suffer from any error jurisdictional or otherwise. For the above mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, CRP.MP.No.5060 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:03.09.2010 usd