THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4021 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 04.03.2010 passed in I.A.No.1900 of 2009 in O.S.No.2199 of 2009 by III Additional Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. I.A.No.1900 of 2009 in O.S.No.2199 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner herein under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead herself as defendant No.2 in the suit. The Court below dismissed the said petition by the impugned order. The case of the petitioner is that she was the tenant of one Sarfubai in respect of eight rooms of the scheduled property; that Sarfubai executed Will in favour of her nephews; that subsequent to the death of Sarfubai, two rooms have fallen to the share of one Yadilal; that in respect of the other six rooms, which have fallen to the share of respondent Nos.1 to 3, the petitioner filed O.S.No.172 of 2008 for specific performance of agreement of sale contending that though she paid Rs.17,00,000/- out of the sale consideration of Rs.22,00,000/-, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are not executing sale deed in her favour, and that during the subsistence of the said suit, respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed the present suit - O.S.No.2199 of 2009 against the petitioner for perpetual injunction though they were never in possession and obtained eviction orders by suppressing the real facts. Therefore, she filed I.A.No.1900 of 2009 in O.S.No.2199 of 2009 seeking to implead herself as defendant No.2 in O.S.No.2199 of 2009. The case of the respondents is that since the petitioner filed claim petition - E.A.No.1255 of 2009 in E.P.No.195 of 2009 in respect of the schedule property, her rights, if any, would be decided in the said claim petition and therefore, she is not necessary party to the present suit. The Court below, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, observed that there appears no stability in the contentions of the petitioner as to her possession over the schedule property and that when she failed to produce any evidence showing her possession and when the claim petition - E.A.No.1255 of 2009 filed by her would determine her rights, if any, she is not a necessary party to the suit and accordingly dismissed I.A.No.1900 of 2009 in O.S.No.2199 of 2009 by the impugned order. Considering of the facts and circumstances of the case and a perusal of the material on record show that having failed to produce any supporting evidence as to her possession in respect of the schedule property and having filed the claim petition, which would determine her rights, if any, as rightly observed by the Court below, the petitioner cannot claim to be a necessary party in the suit and therefore, the impugned order does not suffer any infirmity warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J 08th September, 2010 GHN