THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5108 OF 2011 Dated:09.12.2011 Between: Chodipalli Mangadevi and others .. Petitioners And Yeelchuri Paparao and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5108 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.1525 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. The suit was filed against the sole defendant (first respondent herein) for declaration of title in respect of Item No.1 of the suit schedule property. During pendency of the suit, they filed I.A.No.689 of 2011 under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead the respondents 2 to 4 herein. They alleged that in the connected proceedings before the Court of the III Additional District Judge, an advocate commissioner was appointed directing to localize the schedule property; the advocate commissioner could not complete the task as the proposed parties are causing obstruction and therefore they are proper and necessary parties. The application was opposed. Considering the rival contentions, the Court below dismissed the said application observing that the petitioners have not claimed any relief against the proposed parties; if there is any obstruction, they have a remedy of seeking police protection and therefore the proposed parties are not proper parties. The Court below also observed that merely for the purpose of measuring the plaint schedule property, third parties cannot be impleaded in a suit. The counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that as the proposed parties purchased the property from a common vendor and are obstructing from measuring the land, they have become proper and necessary parties for complete adjudication of all the issues in the suit. The submission is misconceived. There is no denial that the whole dispute is between the petitioners and the first respondent with regard to the plaint schedule property. No relief is claimed by the petitioners against the proposed parties and therefore they are neither necessary nor proper parties. Unless a person is proper and necessary party, unnecessarily he/she cannot be impleaded in a suit. The trial Court had applied the correct principle of law in dismissing I.A.No.689 of 2010 to implead the respondents 2 to 4. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 09.12.2011 KH