IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1521 of 2010 Between: G.Parasuramamma … Petitioner And A.Pullaiah and five others … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1521 OF 2010 ORDER:- This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, who is a third party to the proceedings in O.S.No.75 of 2009, for revising the order passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Alamuru, dated 30.11.2009 dismissing I.A.No.298 of 2009 in O.S.No.75 of 2009 filed by the petitioner to implead him as defendant No.4 to the suit. Respondents/plaintiffs instituted the above suit against defendant Nos.1 to 3 including the Gram Pranchayat for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with ABCD marked property of plaint plan, which is corresponding to plaint schedule property, in which the petitioner, who is residing in the same street and whose house is situated west of the Panchayat road, filed the above I.A. stating that the said property belongs to the Gram Panchayat and plaintiffs have no right to ask for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the ABCD marked portion of the plaint plan. The plaintiffs raised plants shown as ‘T’ in the plaint plan and the plants are nearly 15 in numbers and aged about six months and also placed some hurdles in ‘ABCD’ marked portion of plaint plan which exclusively belongs to Grampanchayat. The plaintiffs planted the plants and also placed hurdles in the road margins, which are not only objectionable encroachments but also causing inconvenience to the vehicle traffic and hence, he may be impleaded as party/defendant to the suit. Plaintiffs filed counter opposing the impleadment. The trial court dismissed the I.A. holding that even according to the Gram Panchayat, they have no record to claim ABCD marked property and the cement road is in existence for the last several years and hence the petitioner, who is a third party and who admittedly has no interest in the plaint schedule property, cannot be said to be a necessary party. Admittedly, when the plaintiffs filed the above suit apprehending dispossession of removal of the trees planted by them from the Gram Panchayat, it is for them to choose the defendant and when the Gram Panchayat is capable of defending its case, the petitioner impleading in support of the claim of the Gram Panchayat at this stage, does not arise. If the petitioner has any right in the plaint schedule property, it is always open for him to seek declaration of his right in an independent suit by impleading all the necessary parties to the suit. No illegality or infirmity is discernable with the finding recorded by the trial court, warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 23rd April 2010 Lmv