THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1629 of 2009 ORDER: Respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed O.S.No.85 of 2003 in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, against respondent Nos.5 to 14 for the relief of partition and separate possession of six items of suit schedule properties. The petitioners filed I.A.No.6844 of 2008 in said suit under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. with a prayer to add themselves as party defendants. It was pleaded that item Nos.2 and 3 of suit schedule properties were agreed to be sold to the petitioners herein and in that context O.S.Nos.221 and 230 of 2006 are pending in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri. The respondents opposed the application. Through its order dated 27.01.2009, the trial Court dismissed the I.A.No.6844 of 2008. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioners, no doubt, filed suits vis-à-vis for two items of properties to work out their remedies. The question as to whether, they derive any right over those properties would depend upon the outcome of those suits. The limited context they intend to get themselves impleaded in O.S.No.85 of 2003 is that their interests in the event of decree being passed in O.S.Nos.221 and 230 of 2006, need to be protected, while allotting the properties in the final decree. There should not be any plausible objection either for the Court or for the parties over such course of action. It must be made clear that the petitioners cannot be permitted to agitate in O.S.No.85 of 2003 for recognition of their title or other related aspects, except that, they can insist on the allotment of shares subject to the outcome of O.S.Nos.221 and 230 of 2006. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order under revision dated 27.01.2001 in I.A.No.6844 of 2008 O.S.No.85 of 2003 is set aside. I.A.No.6844 of 2008 O.S.No.85 of 2003 is allowed and the petitioners shall be added as defendant Nos.11 and 12 limited to the extent of insisting on their interests being protected at the time of passing of final decree. It is made clear that the petitioners shall not be entitled to agitate their rights independently. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 14th June, 2010 GHN