THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.5220 of 2009 Date: 20-11-2009 Between Dasari Issac Prasanna Kumar … Petitioner/Respondent and 1. Buskla Swarna Latha … Respondent/Petitioner 2. Pullakura Indira Priyadarshini … Respondent/ Proposed Respondent No.2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.5220 of 2009 Oral Order: Heard Sri M.K.Raj Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. This revision is directed against the order, dated 05-10-2009, passed by the Rent Controller cum IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna district in dismissing the application I.A.No.615 of 2009 in R.C.C.No.147 of 2007, filed by the tenant under Order I, Rule 10 and Section 151 of CPC read with Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice seeking to implead the proposed party as respondent No.2 in the R.C.C., on the ground that she was the original owner of the property and for consequential amendment of plaint. 3. The petitioner herein is the tenant, respondent No.1 is the landlady and respondent No.2 is the proposed party in the R.C.C., before the Rent Controller. 4. From a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that there is ownership dispute regarding the petition schedule property and in such a case, the said dispute regarding the ownership has to be decided by a competent civil Court but not by the Rent Controller. It also appears that suit O.S.No.414 of 1990 was filed for partition on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. Final decree pursuant thereto is pending before the said Court regarding partition of the property. In such circumstances, it was felt by the trial Court, that there was no necessity to implead the proposed party, who is the alleged original owner of the property, as respondent No.2 in the main proceedings. Further, it is indiscernible as to why respondent No.2 original owner is sought to be impleaded as a party to the main R.C.C., when particularly the tenant himself is claiming title over the property independently. 5. For the foregoing, filing of the interlocutory application is totally frivolous and vexatious and the revision is liable to be dismissed as devoid of any merit. 6. In the result, the revision is dismissed with costs, at the stage of admission, confirming the order under revision. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 20th November, 2009. Ak