IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4482 OF 2007 DATED:03.12.2010 Between: Basheer Mohd. Khan and others … Petitioners And Mohd. Sabid and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4482 OF 2007 ORDER: The petitioners, who are third parties and are proposed to be added as parties to the suit filed by the first respondent - plaintiff for bare injunction, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia assailing the correctness of the impugned order dt.2.4.2007 in I.A. No.392 of 2005 in O.S. No.1015 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller-cum-XII Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, in allowing the application for impleadment. The suit O.S. No.1015 of 2004 was filed by the first respondent – plaintiff for bare injunction restraining the defendant from interfering and constructing in the premises of the respondent - plaintiff. Pending the suit, he filed I.A.No.392 of 2005 to implead the petitioners herein as defendants 2 to 6 to the suit on the ground that the suit schedule property has been purchased by them by way of registered sale deed. The Court below allowed the said application. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The main contention of the petitioners is that they have nothing to do with the claim made in the suit and hence their impleadment is not necessary. The respondent – plaintiff has filed the application – I.A. No.392 of 2005 only to drag on the proceedings. It is no doubt true that the petitioners disown any interest in respect of the subject matter of the suit schedule property. However, the Court below, having regard to the nature of the property and the premises numbers being in dispute, felt it desirable to implead the petitioners herein as defendants 2 to 6 to the suit, so that the issue can be decided from a proper perspective. Having regard to the discussions made by the Court below in the impugned order, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J 03.12.2010 bnr