THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.619 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 09.02.2011, passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Vinukonda in I.A.No.38 of 2011 in O.S.No.24 of 2008, whereunder the petition filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to implead the petitioners therein as defendants 4 to 7 in the said suit was dismissed. The petitioners herein are the proposed parties who sought to be impleaded in the said suit. The said suit was filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of declaration of their right and title to the suit schedule properties and for consequential injunction. When the trial of the suit has been completed and the matter was ripe for arguments, the petitioners herein filed the present application seeking the relief, as stated supra, which was dismissed by the Court below. Hence, the present Revision. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Court below erred in dismissing the said application even though no counter is filed by the plaintiff opposing the same; that the Court below ignoring the spirit of Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C., passed the impugned order and as such, the same is liable to be set aside. Heard the learned counsel and perused the relevant material papers on record. From the same, it is clear that the Court below in its order categorically observed that if the petitioners feel that they have a share in the suit schedule property, the proper remedy for them is to file a separate suit for partition of their shares in the plaint schedule properties. Order I Rule 10 (2) C.P.C. reads as under:- “The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.” As per Order I Rule 10 (2) C.P.C., the Court may on application of either of parties to the suit or on its own accord, if it thinks that the presence of certain party either as plaintiff or defendant is necessary for adjudication of the suit, can order that such person/s be shown as party in the suit. In the case on hand, the petitioners sought to be impleaded as defendants 4 to 7 in the said suit on the ground that the suit schedule properties are their ancestral properties and as such, they have got rights over the same. In this context, it is to be noted that the said suit is filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of their rights and title and for consequential injunction, in which event, the proper remedy or recourse for the petitioners is to file a separate suit claiming their share in the said suit schedule properties, but not by way of the relief as sought for in the present application. In view of the same, the Court below is justified in dismissing the said application giving cogent reasons, which does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED​ 25th February 2011 DR