THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO :2952 of 2010 BETWEEN: Atchi Raghurama Reddy S/o.late Admimurthy Reddy, R/o.D.No.53-11-6, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam, and others. PETITIONERS AND 1. Mutyala Potayya (died) 2. Mutyala Appa Rao S/o. late Potayya, R/o. Isukathota, Visakhapatnam, and others. RESPONDENTS Counsel for Petitioner: Sri P. Rajasekhar Counsel for Respondent: Sri K. Subrahmanyam The Court made the following order: ORDER: This revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners/defendants, is directed against the order dated 24.07.2009 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge (F.T.C.), Visakhapatnam, in I.A.No.65 of 2009 in O.S.No.616 of 2002. The petitioners are the proposed defendants and respondents 1 to 5 are the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the schedule land. Both the parties adduced their evidence and the suit is coming up for arguments. At that stage, the proposed defendants filed the above application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C., seeking to add them as parties to the suit as defendants 3 to 31 and for consequential amendment of the plaint. The respondents filed counter opposing the averments made in the application. The trial Court observed that simply because the name of Atchi Polayya was mentioned in one of the boundaries as owner of the land, it cannot be presumed that he got interest in some part of the schedule mentioned property. If really there is a document in favour of Atchi Polayya, it is not known as to what was the action taken in all these years to protect the property acquired by Atchi Polayya. If any property is left for a period more than twelve years, the right of the person interested in such property will be extinguished by efflux of time. In view of the same, the petitioners failed to establish the relation between them and Atchi Polayya to claim right over the property alleged to be purchased by Atchi Polayya and Polamma. They have also not established the name of the woman with whom Atchi Polayya developed illegal intimacy, and how far they are right in claiming the property which according to them left by Atchi Polayya many years ago. Now they have come up with the present petition making an attempt to take back the suit for denovo trial, after three decades, i.e., at the fag end of proceedings, which is not at all justified, and therefore dismissed the application with costs. Hence the present revision petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. Under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C., the Court has to satisfy whether the parties to be added are proper and necessary parties to the suit, and their presence is necessary for effective adjudication of the matter to avoid controversy or not. In view of the same, the trial Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in dismissing the application. Therefore, I see no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.) 16th July, 2010 Js.