HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 3934 of 2011 Dated: 22.09.2011 Between: M/s. Urmila Mansion Private Limited, Hyderabad. … Petitioner And Pasuladi Raghunath Reddy and 7 others. … Respondents HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 3934 of 2011 O R D E R: The 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.639 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the V Additional Senior Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District for partition of the suit schedule property. Though the suit was initially filed against the respondents 2, 3 and 4 herein, subsequently, the 5th respondent herein was impleaded as defendant No.4 to the suit on the ground that he had purchased the suit schedule properties from the defendants 2 and 4 one day prior to the filing of the suit. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.289 of 2010 under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. to implead the revision petitioner also as defendant on the ground that the defendant No.4 executed a registered Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 17.11.2008 in faovur of the revision petitioner in respect of the plaint schedule property and that the possession of the plaint schedule property was handed over to the revision petitioner. Though the said application was opposed by the revision petitioner, the Court below by order dated 30.11.2010 allowed I.A.No.289 of 2010. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed by the impleaded party. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. It is not disputed before this Court that the property purchased by the revision petitioner under the Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney is the subject matter of O.S.No.639 of 2005. As noticed above, it is a suit for partition and according to the plaintiff/first respondent herein, the suit schedule property is a joint family property and the defendants are not competent to alienate any part of the said property. In the admitted facts and circumstances, the Court below opined that the revision petitioner, who is claiming title through the defendants 1 to 4 is a proper and necessary party so as to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. The said discretion exercised by the Court below on proper appreciation of the material available on record, warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition, which is devoid of merit, is dismissed. No costs. _______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 22.09.2011 KLP