THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1190 OF 2011 Dated: 24.11.2011 Between : Y.V.Mahender Reddy … Petitioner And Smt. Ramulamma and 7 others … Respondents The Court made the following:- THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1190 OF 2011 O R D E R: The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.729 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. The suit is filed against the respondents 1 to 7 herein for partition of the suit schedule properties. The written statement of the defendants is yet to be filed. While so, the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.2166 of 2008 under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C to implead the 8th respondent herein as a defendant pleading that a part of the suit schedule property was sold in her favour. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 19.10.2010 and aggrieved by the same, the present Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 8th respondent. The order under Revision shows that the application for impleadment was dismissed on the ground that the sale was affected by the plaintiff’s father in favour of the proposed party much prior to the filing of the suit. It was also observed that since the plaintiff was a major by the date of the said transaction under a registered sale deed, it must be presumed that the plaintiff had notice of such alienation. In my considered opinion, both the grounds upon which the application was dismissed by the Court below are irrelevant and untenable. While considering an application under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C., the question that requires consideration is whether the presence of proposed party is necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. The Court below failed to proceed in that direction and dismissed the application on a wholly irrelevant ground that the sale took place prior to the filing of the suit. In view of the admitted fact that the property, which was sold by the father of the plaintiff, is the joint family property, I am of the opinion that the proposed party is a proper and necessary party for adjudication of the real controversy involved in the suit. Accordingly, the order under Revision is hereby set aside and I.A.No 2166 of 2008 in O.S.No.729 of 2008 shall stand allowed. The Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 24.11.2011 Ivd