IN THE HIGH Court OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH (9TH) DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5642 of 2010 Between: J. Appala Reddy … Petitioner And: Majji Surya Bhagavan & 2 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5642 of 2010 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 08.09.2010 in IA No.476 of 2009 in OS No.2050 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead the President, NGGOs Cooperative Society, Akkayapalem, as 3rd defendant, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed suit against the respondents 1 and 2 herein for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and also for grant of damages and expenses in a sum of Rs.80,001/-. According to the petitioner, NGGOs Cooperative House Building Society allotted suit house site to Ch. S.V. Ratnakumari under proceedings dated 13.04.1985 and the original allottee requested the society to transfer the original allotment in favour of the plaintiff, who is also a member of the society, as she is unable to construct a house in the suit schedule property and the society approved the transfer by letter dated 26.10.1993 and the plaintiff paid transfer fees as demanded and the site was handed over to him. It is alleged that the first defendant, being a Gazetted Officer, intended to grab the same and contacted 2nd defendant, who is the Municipal Contractor and Builder and tried to level the site on 15.10.2007 and cut the mango trees thereon. On being informed of the same by the neighbours, the plaintiff rushed to Visakhapatnam and noticed cutting of the mango trees and the damage caused to the site by the defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff, therefore, filed suit for permanent injunction and also for recovery of damages in a sum of Rs.80,001/-. 4. The first defendant filed written statement, contending that the plot was allotted to him by the Government and he paid vacant land taxes also to the Municipal Authorities on 12.10.2007 in a sum of Rs.9018/- and his name was also mutated in the municipal records and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same in his own right and he levelled the ground and erected a shed and put up a board in the property. 5. As seen from the contentions of both parties, there is a rival claim of ownership, possession and enjoyment in respect of the suit schedule house site. The plaintiff is claiming that the plot was purchased by him from the original allottee Ch.S.V.Rathnakumari, to whom it was allotted by N.G.G.Os Cooperative Society and on the other hand, the first defendant claiming that it was allotted to him by the Government. Both parties alleged that one party is trying to dispossess the other high-handedly. The dispute as to which of the two rival claims is true and correct is a matter to be decided on evidence that may be adduced in the course of trial. The plaintiff filed the present application seeking to implead the President of NGGOs Cooperative Society as 3rd defendant. Admittedly, there is no conflict of interest between the plaintiff and the proposed 3rd defendant. On the other hand, the plaintiff is basing his claim on the allotment made by the society, initially, in favour of Rathna Kumari and subsequently society recognized the transfer made by Rathnakumari in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the President of the Society, if at all is a potential witness for the plaintiff. As rightly observed by the trial Court, it is open to the plaintiff to examine the President of the Society as a witness on his side in respect of his claim. When there is absolutely no allegation made against the society in the plaint and when no relief is being claimed against the society, there is absolutely no need to implead the President of the Society as 3rd defendant. The proposed 3rd defendant is neither a proper nor a necessary party to the suit. The dismissal of the application by the trial Court does not, therefore, call for any interference by this Court. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. The interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. No order as to costs. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 09.02.2011 bss