HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4829 OF 2009 DATE:14-10-2011 BETWEEN Guntagani Devasahayam and another …Petitioners AND Korralla Venkata Visveswara Linga Rao and another …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4829 OF 2009 ORDER: Plaintiffs filed this revision under Article 227 of constitution of India to revise the order of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in allowing implead petition filed by third party-first respondent herein in I.A.No.536 of 2008 in O.S.No.580 of 2008. The above suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs- petitioners herein for perpetual injunction against the defendant- second respondent herein. Pending the suit, first respondent herein, who is third party, filed the impugned I.A. stating that his adoptive father purchased the plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 16.6.1947 when he was a minor and during his life time, he enjoyed the said property and died intestate on 8.2.1954. After the death of his father, his adoptive mother and himself have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. His mother died intestate on 19.11.1990. During the life time of his mother, he obtained permission and plan from the Vijayawada Municipality for construction of a house over the plaint schedule property but he could not construct the same. Upon the death of his mother, when the petitioner commenced raising of a boundary wall over the property, the same was stopped by the police personnel. On enquiry, he came to know that the plaintiffs filed the present suit and obtained an ex parte injunction with regard to the very same property, in which, the second respondent is the defendant who set ex parte and thus the said suit is a collusive one and under the guise of said injunction order, plaintiffs are trying to trespass into the property owned by him and therefore, he is a necessary and proper party to be impleaded in the suit to prove his possession over the property. The lower Court by the impugned order allowed the I.A. holding that the first respondent herein will suffer loss if he is not impleaded in the suit and he can always prove his possession and resist the claim of the plaintiffs and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings he is a necessary party to the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that in a suit for perpetual injunction, the plaintiff is the dominus litis and he cannot be forced to prosecute the case against the person against whom he is not willing to prosecute the case as held by this Court in Ainala Kumar and others v. Pulakanti Narsi Reddy and others (2008 (3) ALD 686). No doubt, in a suit filed for simplicitor injunction, the plaintiff is the dominus litis and he can seek injunction against the person who is interfering with his possession by establishing possession over the property. But, according to the first respondent-third party, the suit is a collusive one as the sole defendant remained ex parte and under the guise of temporary injunction, the plaintiffs are interfering with his possession and therefore, he is a necessary party to resist the claim of the plaintiffs. Under these circumstances, the first respondent is a necessary and proper party, at least, to prove his possession over the suit schedule property. The impugned order passed by the lower Court does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. OCTOBER 14, 2011 Tsr.