IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.2870 AND 3882 OF 2010 Between in 2870 of 2010 : Naresh Ratiwal and others. .... PETITIONERS A N D N.Anantha Reddy and another …RESPONDENTS Between in 3882 of 2010: Naresh Ratiwal and others. .... PETITIONERS A N D N.Anantha Reddy and another …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS. 2870 AND 3882 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two Civil Revision Petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are directed against the common order, dated 18.06.2010 in I.A.Nos. 269 and 270 of 2010 in O.S.No.960 of 2010, on the file of IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the applications filed under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to implead third party as defendant No.2 in the main suit and respondent No.2 in I.A. No.204 of 2010, were allowed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. O.S.No.960 of 2010 on the file of IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, was filed by the petitioners herein (plaintiffs) for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The petitioners also filed I.A.No.204 of 2010 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. seeking temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. After hearing both sides, the trial Court granted temporary injunction. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that since respondent No.2 herein – Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, is interfering with the possession of the petitioners, they sought for injunction against the Municipality and therefore, the proposed party is not necessary party before the Court below to adjudicate the dispute, hence, they pray to set aside the same. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 herein contended that the petitioner is constructing the building in violation of the sanction plan without leaving the set backs. 6. No doubt, no relief is sought for against the proposed party in the suit. The object of Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C. to implead a third party to the suit is that the dispute in the suit would be resolved in the presence of all, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. There must be some semblance of right to the proposed party. If the petitioner violates the building plan without leaving set backs, cellar etc., then certainly it would cause inconvenience to the neighbours. The proposed party is one of the neighbours. Therefore, to safeguard his interest, in view of the fact that he has got some semblance of right, though no relief is claimed against him, he would be necessary and proper party to come on record. That is why the trial Court rightly impleaded him as a party to the suit and I.A and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. The revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU. J OCTOBER 25, 2010. YVL