THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4287 OF 2011 29th October, 2011 BETWEEN: D.VENKATA VIJAYA KUMAR .. PETITIONER AND G.RAGHAVENDRA VARMA @ RAGHU AND ANOTHER .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4287 OF 2011 O R D E R : This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the docket order dated 14-6-2011 rejecting I.A.No.311 of 2010 in O.S.No.410 of 2009 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. I.A.No.311 of 2010 was filed by the revision petitioner/ plaintiff seeking to implead 2nd respondent herein as 2nd defendant in the suit claiming that the 1st defendant had presumably handed over a blank cheque bearing No.035075 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Visakhapatnam and a blank pronote to the proposed 2nd defendant; on the basis of which the said defendant had raised a demand for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the petitioner/ plaintiff and the said cheque bearing No.035075 was presented for encashing and bounced. The proposed 2nd defendant had filed a case against the petitioner/ plaintiff under section 138 of N.I.Act whereat the petitioner/ plaintiff was also convicted. He preferred an appeal against the conviction which is said to be pending. By the docket order impugned the court below rejected I.A.No.311 of 2010 holding that there are no tenable grounds for impleading the proposed party as 2nd defendant in the suit since the suit is not filed for damages or mental agony caused to the petitioner/ plaintiff and only for determination of the dispute between the plaintiff and defendant regarding issuance of blank promissory note and non-return of the same to the petitioner/ plaintiff by the defendant despite, the purposes for which the cheque was handed over to the defendant having been served. Having perused the plaint filed in support of O.S.No.410 of 2009 it is clear that the entire transaction alleged and the relief sought by the revision petitioner/plaintiff is directed towards the sole defendant. Even the relief is claimed against him except a passing mention in para 3 (f) of the plaint regarding the demand made by the proposed-2nd defendant of Rs.3,00,000/- whereby the plaintiff asserts to have inferred that the defendant might have handed over the blank promissory cheque to the said individual i.e. Sri.M.Chandra Raju. There is no other nexus between the pleadings in the suit and the relief sought therein and the proposed defendant, warranting or justifying his impleadment as another defendant in the suit. For the aforesaid reasons, this court discerns no infirmity in the impugned docket order of the court warranting revisional interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 29th October, 2011. TNB THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4287 OF 2011 29TH September, 2011. tnb