THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.416 of 2010 Dt.18.6.2010 1. G.Bhanumathi and another … Petitioners vs. 1.S.Gudu Saheb and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.416 of 2010 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 06.10.2009, passed in I.A.No.390 of 2009 in O.S.No.109 of 2009 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs, who filed the suit in O.S.No.109 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, for grant of permanent injunction against defendant Nos.1 and 2 therein namely S.Gudu Saheb and S.Samshu restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff’s over ABCD portion of the plaint schedule property and to direct them to remove the wall raised in the ABCD portion between EF as shown in the plaint rough sketch. It is stated that the suit was filed on the impression that the disputed property is interfered by the said defendants and after grant of injunction and at the time of execution of the warrant, it came to know that the western side of the plaint schedule property stands in the name of S.Basheerabi, who is the wife of first defendant and therefore she is necessary and proper party to the suit for adjudication. Accordingly, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC was filed seeking impleadment of S.Basheerabi as defendant No.3. The said application was dismissed on the ground that the suit for injunction was filed against the persons, who caused obstruction in enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff and in the affidavit, there is no mention about causing of any obstruction by any other party. It is stated that only at the time of execution of warrant by the Advocate-Commissioner, it came to know that the western side of the plaint schedule property is claimed by Basheerabi and as she obstructed, she is also proper and necessary party to the suit. The Court below without assigning any reasons simply held that there are no reasons to allow the petition and accordingly, the petition was dismissed. In a suit for injunction, when an objector is sought to be impleaded, there cannot be any justification on the part of the Court below in dismissing the said application. As per the averments made in the affidavit seeking to implead S.Basheerabi as a third party, it is stated that she is claiming the western side of the suit schedule property and objected the execution of the warrant, it cannot be said that she is not proper and necessary party. The plaintiffs cannot be driven to file separate suits against each and every objector. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the Court below ought to have allowed the said application. Accordingly, the order under revision is set aside and the CRP is allowed and I.A.No.390 of 2009 in O.S.No.109 stands allowed with costs. _______________ V.ESWARAIAH,J 18th June, 2010 PNV