IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3976 of 2007 Between: Rayapati Prasad, Rep. by his guardian Gullapalli Veeren Chakravarthi, and another …Petitioners A n d Rayapati Srinivasa Rao and others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3976 of 2007 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 10-04-2007 in I.A.No.2264 of 2006 in O.S.No.1796 of 2003, on the file of the III-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, wherein the said application filed by the first respondent herein under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking to come on record as 6th defendant in the suit, was allowed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed the suit against respondents 2 to 5 for permanent injunction in respect of plaint schedule house property. The defendants filed written statement contesting the suit. The first respondent herein filed I.A.No.2264 of 2006 seeking to come on record as D-6 on the ground that he is the younger brother of the first plaintiff and he is the absolute owner of the southern half side of the plaint schedule property under a Will and is in possession of the same as absolute owner and that he is in permissive possession of the northern portion of the property under the permission granted by D- 1. Thus, the petitioner claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the entire plaint schedule property and, therefore, he is a necessary party to the suit. 4. The plaintiffs would contend that the Will propounded by the first respondent/petitioner is a forged document and the petitioner is not entitled for any share. The question as to the genuineness or otherwise of the Will is a matter to be considered on evidence but not at this stage in the present proceedings. When the first respondent third party claims to be in possession of the entire plaint schedule property, half of it in his own right and the remaining half under permissive possession, he is certainly a person interested in the subject matter of the property and is, therefore, a proper and necessary party to the suit. His impleadment as defendant is absolutely necessary for comprehensive and effective adjudication of the dispute in the presence of all the parties concerned. The impugned order permitting to be impleaded as 6th defendant does not, therefore, suffer from any illegality or material irregularity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 22nd March 2011 Lrkm.