THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.R.P.No.2861 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision is filed against the order dated 15.10.2008, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Khammam, in I.A.No.222 of 2008 in O.S.No.75 of 2002 allowing the petition filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. 2. One Pallapu Pushpalatha, filed the impugned petition seeking to implead her as party defendant No.4, contending that one Nagamani, who is the owner of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.2.20 guntas in S.No.149 and another Ac.2.20 guntas in Sy.No.150, which are part of suit schedule property for partition has purchased the same from her. The said Nagamani acquired that land from her father Mareddy Rami Reddy by way of gift in the year 2001 and that she executed an agreement of sale in favour of Respondent No.1/proposed party defendant No.4. As such, the proposed party wanted to come on record by filing the impugned petition and the same is allowed by the Court below. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners herein is that as the proposed party defendant/D4 is not directly connected with the transaction, she only claims that she entered into an agreement of sale with donee, who herself is not a party to the suit, the trial Court erred in allowing the petition. 5. As observed by the learned trial Judge, in the suit for partition for effectively deciding the rights of parties and to avoid multiplicity of litigation, there is no harm in allowing the proposed party to come on record. 6. Thus, I see no merits in the revision and the same is accordingly dismissed. As the suit is of the year 2002, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same expeditiously by treating it as an identified case, if not already included in the list of identified cases. ___________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 21st August 2009 Rns