HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.948 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 27-11-2006 in I.A.No.156 of 2006 in O.S.No.16 of 2006, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Tekkali, wherein the said petition filed by the petitioner herein under Order I Rule 10 CPC to get impleaded as a defendant, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. Perused the records. 3. The first respondent herein filed the suit agianst the second respondent in O.S.No.16 of 2006, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Tekkali, for permanent injunction in respect of a house property. It is not disputed that in respect of the same house property, the petitioner filed O.S.No.11 of 2000. The petitioner herein claims title and possession over the suit property under an unregistered settlement deed from one M.Tulasamma, his paternal grandmother. The first respondent herein claims title to the suit property by virtue of registered settlement deed. The petitioner seeks to come on record in O.S.No.16 of 2006 filed by the first respondent herein against the second respondent, as a proper and necessary party, as he claims to be true owner of the property and in possession. The suit O.S.No.11 of 2000 is said to have been filed for cancellation of the registered deed obtained by the first respondent. The subject matter of the two suits is of one and the same property and there are rival claims of ownership and possession in respect of the same. In view of the contentions raised by the petitioner claiming interest in the suit property in respect of which he had already filed a suit O.S.No.11 of 2000, it is only just and proper that he be impleaded as a party defendant to the suit O.S.No.16 of 2006 so that the dispute can be resolved comprehensively in the present suit against all the parties concerned, who are claiming interest in the subject matter of the suit. The petitioner is, therefore, held to be a proper and necessary party to the suit and, thus, he is entitled to get impleaded as second defendant. The impugned order, dismissing the said application is, therefore, held unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. 4. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim stay granted on 08-03-2007 stands vacated. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 17th June, 2010. Lrkm. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.948 OF 2007 Between:- Ronanki Ravikiran …Petitioner A n d Vanajakshi Patro and another …Respondent