IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELVETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1817 OF 2011 Between : Nandikatla Yerryswamy Reddy @ Rajasekhar Reddy and others. ... PETITIONER A N D Nadikatla Thimma Reddy and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 1817 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 31.05.2010, in I.A.No.562 of 2009 in O.S.No.70 of 2004 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, Kurnool District, whereunder and whereby, the application filed under Order I Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) to implead respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein as defendant Nos.7 and 8 in O.S.No.70 of 2004, was dismissed the ground that the petitioners herein with a view to prolong the suit, the application was filed. 2. Heard. 3. O.S.No.70 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, was filed by the first respondent herein against the petitioners herein for partition and separate possession. Pending the suit, the petitioners herein filed the above Interlocutory Application, for impleading the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein as defendant Nos.7 and 8 in the suit. After hearing both sides, the Court below dismissed the said application. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is filed. 4. Under Order I Rule 10 CPC, the Court has power to implead any party for the purpose of effective adjudication in the suit so that the rights of the parties can be determined once for all. But, at the same time, the parties who wanted to be impleaded as defendants, must show some semblance of right over the suit schedule property. 5. The power to add a party under Sub Rule (2) of Rule 10 CPC may be exercised on either of the two grounds: a) such person ought to have joined, either as a plaintiff or as a defendant, but is not so joined, or b) without his presence, the question involved in the suit cannot be decided finally and effectively. 6. O.S.No.70 of 2004 was filed by the first respondent herein for partition of plaint schedule properties into four equal shares and allotment of one such share to him by metes and bounds. It is not the case of the petitioners herein that the proposed parties are entitled for a share in the property. It must be shown that the proposed parties have some semblance of right over the suit schedule property. There is no allegation in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the proposed parties have some semblance of right over the suit schedule property. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 7 Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed leaving open the remedies available to the petitioners under law. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C.BHANU. J AUGUST 12, 2011. YVL