THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6247 of 2009 Oral order: This revision is directed against the order dated 20-10-2009 of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole allowing I.A.No. 1167 of 2008 instituted by the 1st respondent herein in O.S.No. 381 of 2008 seeking to implead herself as the 4th defendant in the suit filed by the revision petitioner for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. Earlier the petitioner herein filed O.S.No. 709 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole against the 1st respondent herein and one Ponugupati Rathaiah seeking a permanent injunction in respect of the same property. The said suit was dismissed by the judgment dated 24-3-2007. The petitioner then filed O.S.No. 381 of 2008 impleading the State, represented by the District Collector, Prakasam, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole and the Tahasildar, Ongole Mandal seeking, as already stated, permanent injunction in respect of the same property. Asserting that she is absolute owner of the suit schedule property and that the revision petitioner-plaintiff has no manner of right or title to the suit schedule property; that after evicting the plaintiff from the suit schedule property (site) in May, 2008 she was put in possession and enjoyment; however being an influential person, the revision petitioner-plaintiff has filed the suit only against the official respondents (impleaded as defendants) without impleading her though she has a litigable interest in respect of the schedule property, the 1st respondent filed I.A.No. 1167 of 2008 for impleading herself as the 4th respondent in the suit. The Court below, by the order impugned herein determined that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and in recognition of a prima facie interest of the 1st respondent herein in respect of the suit schedule property as well as the causes pleaded in the present suit O.S.No. 381 of 2008, to exercise discretion to allow the I.A. permitting the 1st respondent to come on record as the 4th defendant. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that if the 1st respondent herein is permitted to be impleaded as the 4th defendant in the suit, she would inevitably claim title to the suit schedule property and that would require the revision petitioner- plaintiff to amend O.S.No.381 of 2008 filed for a mere permanent injunction for a wider relief of declaration of title as well and that would put the revision petitioner to considerable expense and litigative trauma. This contention does not commend acceptance by this Court. The process of litigation dilatory as it is, is not an exercise in forensic jousting. The essential purpose of adjudication is to settle expeditiously and as far as possible satisfactorily, all competing litigable claims in relation to the lis. In that view of the matter, this Court discerns no infirmity in the order of the Court below, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. There being no merits, this revision is dismissed at the stage of admission. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 12th March, 2010. GRR