THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1479 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed aggrieved by the order dated 17.02.2010 in I.A. No.2991 of 2008 in O.S. No.76 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed under Order I Rule 10 (2) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) filed by the first respondent/third party to implead the Association as defendant no.24 in the suit, was allowed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs contended that plaint ‘B’ schedule property was converted into plots by various persons and therefore the members who were affected, can come on record, but not the society, and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent contended that in view of the fact that the first respondent has got some semblance of right over the schedule property, the trial court rightly allowed the petition, and that, since the members formed themselves into a society, the society filed the application to implead it as defendant, and hence, he prays to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. 5. The primary object of enacting Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. is to bring before the Court, at one and the same time, all the persons interested in the dispute so that all the controversies in the suit may be finally determined once for all in the presence of all the parties without delay, inconvenience and expenses of several actions, trials and inconclusive adjudication. But, the party who wants to invoke aid of the said provision, must show some semblance of right over the property in dispute. 6. The suit is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs against the respondents 2 to 24/defendants for partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule properties. The only objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in view of the fact that the plaint schedule property was converted into plots and sold to various persons, the individual members can be brought on record so that the rights of individual members can be decided. But, it is not in dispute before this court that the members constituted themselves into a society and the same has been registered in accordance with law and it is a legal entity, which can sue and be sued. Hence, the President of the Society wanted to come on record to safeguard the interest of its members. When the society is constituted in accordance with law, the Society can safeguard the interests of its members. Since the first respondent society has got some semblance of right over the property, the trial court rightly allowed the application and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 7. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 24.2.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1479 OF 2010 24.2.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1479 OF 2010 24.2.2011 Between: Zakir Hussain Junaidi & others …Petitioners And Sri Vani Enclave Welfare Association & others …Respondents