IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5626 OF 2009 DATED:18.03.2011 Between: Chepparla Prasanna Lakshmi … Petitioner And Rajana Appala Naidu and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5626 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner herein is defendant No.4 in the suit – O.S. NO.1489 of 2004 filed by the respondent No.2 – plaintiff, before the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, seeking a declaration that the sale deed is not enforceable under law and for other consequential reliefs. The petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein, who are defendant Nos.4, 2 and 5 respectively in the suit, filed I.A. No.318 of 2009 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure to strike out their names in the suit proceedings on the ground that they had settled their controversy before the Lok Adalat. The said I.A. was dismissed by the Court below by the impugned order dt.5.8.2009 observing that merely because the defendant Nos.2, 4 and 5 are not inclined to contest the suit claim on the ground that they had settled their controversy before the Lok Adalat, their names cannot be striked off as defendants in the suit. Hence, this revision. I have perused the record. In my considered opinion the trial Court rightly dismissed the application on the ground that the award of the Lok Adalat is not binding on the plaintiff to file the suit against defendant Nos.2, 4 and 5, and that if they have no interest to contest the suit they need not prosecute the same and it is not necessary for them to enter into witness box to give evidence, in view of the award of the Lok Adalat. Though the I.A. was filed by defendant Nos.2, 4 and 5, which was dismissed by the Court, present civil revision petition is filed by defendant No.4 only and the impugned order dismissing the I.A. has become final insofar as defendants 2 and 5, who are respondents 4 and 5 herein, is concerned. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J 18.3.2011 bnr