HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.4026 OF 2009 DATED: 11-09-2009 BETWEEN: Yellamilli Venkataramana @ Kondababu …Petitioner AND Nagabattula Parvathi & Others. …Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.4026 OF 2009 ORDER: The plaintiff filed this revision aggrieved by the orders, dated 30.7.2009 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram in I.A.No.355 of 2007 in O.S.No.50 of 2007, whereby and whereunder the I.A. filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead them as party-defendants to the suit filed for specific performance was allowed. Admittedly, the petitioner-plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale alleged to have been executed by the defendant-3rd respondent herein. The respondents 1 and 2 herein, who got themselves impleaed in the suit, are wife and daughter of defendant-3rd respondent herein. They filed O.S.No.574 of 2006 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram claiming maintenance from the defendant-3rd respondent herein and also sought for a charge over item No.1 of plaint schedule property, and that they obtained an injunction restraining the defendant-3rd respondent herein from alienating the suit schedule property. Further the 2nd respondent being daughter of the 3rd respondent, the vendor of the petitioner- plaintiff, can also claim a share over the suit schedule property as per the amendment carried out to Hindu Succession Act. In that view of the matter, the lower Court, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, rightly ordered the impleadment of the respondents 1 and 2 herein as defendants 2 and 3 in the suit. Further if the impugned order is allowed to stand, it will not attain finality and cause any prejudice to the petitioner-plaintiff since the issue whether the impleaded parties are entitled to any right over the suit schedule property or not can be decided on a full-fledged trial. No infirmity is discernable with the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. The revision is accordingly dismissed at the threshold. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. SEPTEMBER 11, 2009 Tsr.