THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3091 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 01.04.2010, in I.A.No.962 of 2008 in O.S.No.4 of 2004 on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order I Rule 10 CPC, seeking to get impleaded as defendant in the suit, was dismissed on the ground that the suit is filed for mere injunction and does not involve declaration of title of the properties of the parties over the suit property. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondents. Perused the records. 3. 1st respondent herein filed the suit against the 2nd respondent for permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule land. According to the petitioner, he purchased the suit property from the 2nd respondent under registered sale deed-Ex.P3, dated 27.09.2003, and mutation was also effected in his name and that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the land. Petitioner alleges that the 1st respondent, claiming to have purchased a portion of the said land, filed a collusive suit against the 2nd respondent for injunction to defeat the rights of the petitioner, who is the real owner. He, therefore, filed I.A.No.962 of 2008 seeking to come on record to establish his claim of possession as real owner. The trial Court dismissed the said application observing that the suit is one for mere injunction and the remedy, if any, for the petitioner is elsewhere. 4. It is to be noted that even in a suit for mere injunction, the question of title has to be gone into incidentally. When the petitioner claims to be the real and absolute owner of the suit property, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed, he is therefore a person interested in the suit property. The presence of the petitioner is very much essential to consider the claim of the 1st respondent-plaintiff for injunction. The question as to whether the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, as claimed by him, or the 1st respondent-plaintiff is in possession thereof is a crucial aspect to be considered by the trial Court for proper adjudication of the dispute. 5. Petitioner is certainly a proper and necessary party to the suit. Even though the suit is filed for injunction, the presence and participation of the petitioner in the proceedings would certainly help in a comprehensive and effective adjudication of the dispute, especially when the petitioner is contending that the suit is filed collusively by the respondents. 6. In a decision reported in AMIT KUMAR SHAW & ANOTHER v. FARIDA KHATOON & ANOTHER[1], the apex Court held as follows: “The object of Order 1 Rule 10 is to discourage contests on technical pleas, and to save honest and bona fide claimants from being non- suited. The power to strike out or add parties can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the proceedings. Under this Rule, a person may be added as a party to a suit in the following two cases: (1) When he ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant, and is not joined so, or (2) When, without his presence, the questions in the suit cannot be completely decided. The power of a Court to add a party to a proceeding can not depend solely on the question whether he has interest in the suit property. The question is whether the right of a person may be affected if he is not added as a party. Such right, however, will include necessarily an enforceable legal right”. 7. The above principles were followed by this Court in a decision reported in KATTA VENKATESWARA RAO v. CH.LEELAVATHI (DIED) AND OTHERS[2]. 8. Under those circumstances, it is held that the impugned order, refusing permission for the petitioner to get impleaded as defendant, is unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. 9. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 18th August, 2011. Note: Furnish C.C. of the order within one week. B/o Tsy [1] 2005 (3) SUPREME 670 [2] ALD 5(2008) 320