IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2427 OF 2010 Between: Gogulothu Hamsa Reddy .....PETITIONER AND Boda Venkati and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2427 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 03.03.2010, in I.A.No.392 of 2009 in O.S.No.43 of 2004, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla, whereunder and whereby, the petition, under Order I rule 10(2) read with Section 151 C.P.C., filed by the petitioner to strike out his name from the array of defendant No.4 in O.S.No.43 of 2004, was dismissed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that as on the date of alleged cause of action in the suit, he was working as Deputy Executive Engineer in Roads and Buildings Department, Manthani; that he was not at all present at the suit schedule property; and that his name was improperly joined in the suit and therefore, his name to be struck out. 3. Under Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C., the court can strike out the name of defendant/plaintiff at any stage of the suit, when it comes to the conclusion that a party was improperly joined. The suit is filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction. The trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground that it is a question of fact to be decided basing on the evidence available on record. 4. A specific allegation is levelled against the present petitioner that he trespassed into the suit schedule land of the plaintiffs in the suit and committed damage to the crop. Whether he was present or not in the suit schedule land at the time of the incident has to be decided after letting in evidence. Basing on the pleadings a fact cannot be decided. Further more, in a panchanama conducted by the Revenue Inspector, it is stated that the petitioner/D.4 and other defendants in the suit damaged the castor-oil crop by trespassing into the suit schedule land. Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the present petition. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J June 18, 2010 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2427 OF 2010 June 18, 2010