THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5627 OF 2010 ORDER : 1. The Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 27.07.2009 in I.A. No.216 of 2008 in O.S. No.17 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Hindupur, Anantapur district, whereunder and whereby the application filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) to implead the petitioner herein as defendant no.2 in the suit, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The first respondent/plaintiff filed Original Suit No.17 of 2007 before the court below for declaration of her title over plaint schedule property and consequential permanent injunction, against the second respondent/defendant. Trial has commenced in the suit. P.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined on behalf of the plaintiff and the suit is coming for further evidence on plaintiff’s side. At that stage, the petitioner, who is third party to the suit and wife of the second respondent/defendant, filed the application to implead her as second defendant in the suit. 4. The primary object of Order I Rule 10 (2) CPC is to bring before the court, at one and the same, 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. 5. The claim of the petitioner is that as she has got three pre-deceased sons and four surviving daughters, she got 7/8th share in all joint family properties including the plaint schedule properties and her husband has got only 1/8th share in all these properties, and hence she may be impleaded as defendant no.2 in the suit. The first respondent/plaintiff had taken a specific plea in the counter filed in the application that subsequent to the sale of plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff, the petitioner, petitioner’s husband and her four daughters have entered into a partition deed dated 29.4.2006 in respect of the joint family properties, but the petitioner has neither questioned the plaint schedule properties nor claimed any share in schedule properties under the partition. The partition among them is complete in respect of all other properties and the petitioner, who had taken a share in the properties along with her husband under the registered partition deed, cannot turn around and say that she has got a share in the plaint schedule property. She ought to have objected at the time of execution of the registered partition deed, or at any rate, she would have claimed more properties under the partition deed. Prima facie, the petitioner has no semblance of right over the property, which is in dispute in the suit. As such, she is not entitled to come on record. 6. The specific case of the petitioner is that her three sons died at early ages and hence their shares devolved upon her as Class I heir under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Legally, it may not be correct position. But, her husband categorically pleaded in the suit that he had no male issues. It is not the case of the husband of the petitioner that the three sons born to the petitioner through him and they died. No prima facie is material filed by the petitioner to substantiate the same. Admittedly, the petitioner is living amicably with her husband, who is the defendant in the suit, and she must be having knowledge about the transactions relating to her husband. Considering these aspects, the trial court rightly exercised its discretion and dismissed the application as the petitioner has no semblance of right prima facie at this stage. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. --------------------- 15.2.2011 (K.C.Bhanu, J.) DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5627 OF 2010 15.2.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5627 OF 2010 15.2.2011 Between: K.Sanjeevamma …Petitioners And B.Yasoda & another …Respondents