THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1735 of 2011 Dated: 8-07-2011 Oral Order: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 16-11-2010 of the learned X Additional District Judge, Anakapalle allowing I.A.No. 841 of 2007 filed by the 4th respondent herein to implead the revision petitioner as the 4th respondent in O.S.No. 323 of 2004 filed for partition of the suit schedule property. The revision petitioner is the son of the 2nd respondent who is the 1st defendant in the suit. The 3rd respondent herein who is the 2nd defendant is the mother of the 1st defendant and the 4th respondent herein the 3rd defendant, are related to the 1st respondent/plaintiff. The suit schedule property in O.S.No. 323 of 2004 is among the properties in respect of which the revision petitioner had filed O.S.No. 42 of 2005, seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants therein including the plaintiff in O.S.NO. 323 of 2004. O.S.No. 42 of 2005 filed by the revision petitioner is stated to have been clubbed for trial along with O.S.No. 323 of 2004, filed by the 1st respondent herein seeking partition. In the circumstances, the 1st respondent, the plaintiff in O.S.No.323 of 2004 filed I.A.No. 841 of 2007 to implead the revision petitioner as the 4th defendant and to make consequential amendment to the plaint. Earlier the 1st respondent had filed I.A.No. 32 of 2004 and I.A.No. 132 of 2004, inter alia, to add the revision petitioner as a party to the suit. These applications, as it emerges, were dismissed not on merits but on account of certain technical infirmities in so far as I.A.No. 32 of 2004 is concerned and as not pressed in so far as I.A.No. 132 of 2004 is concerned. Nevertheless, the 1st respondent filed I.A.No.841 of 2007 and this was ordered by the Court below by the order impugned, on the ground that it would serve the purpose of avoiding multifarious and plurality of litigation. The reasons recorded by the Court below for allowing I.A.No. 841 of 2007 and to implead the revision petitioner as the 4th defendant in the suit suffers from no error in the application of law or exercise of discretion, warranting interference. The revision petition also suffers no injury, since he is already the plaintiff in O.S.No. 42 of 2005 which is clubbed for trial along with O.S.No. 323 of 2004. For the aforesaid reasons, there are no merits. The revision is dismissed at the stage of admission. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 8th July, 2011. GRR