HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2271 of 2009 Between: Gadiya Simhachalam. ..... PETITIONER AND Gadiya Saraswathamma and others. .....RESPONDENTS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2271 of 2009 ORDER: This revision petition is filed against the order of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Pathapatnam, in I.A.No. 292 of 2008 in O.S.No. 58 of 2007, dated 29.12.2008. I.A.No. 292 of 2008 is a petition filed under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. by a third party seeking to implead herself as a party respondent in the suit. The Court below noted that the petitioner in the I.A. had claimed a portion of the suit schedule property and that the said property was given to her by the Government as house site patta in the year 2006; that she had absolute right and was in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and that the Government had recognized her possession and enjoyment; and that she disputed the right and title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and had contended that he had intentionally filed the suit to grab away the property. The Court below held that giving an opportunity to the petitioner-third party to implead herself as the third defendant in the suit would not cause any prejudice or loss or damage to the rights of the other side. The petition was allowed on condition that the petitioner in the I.A. paid costs of Rs.200/-. The petitioner- third party was permitted to be impleaded as the third defendant and to amend the cause title of the plaint. Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the patta filed by the first respondent herein was forged, that her intention was only to grab property which rightly belonged to the petitioner herein and, even as per the patta, it was only a part of the suit schedule property and not the entire extent to which the first respondent was claiming title. The only question which the Court below had examined is whether the first respondent herein should or should not be impleaded as the third defendant in the suit. The several contentions urged before this Court, by Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, are all matters which the Court below is required to consider after a proper trial. Suffice to observe that the order of the Court below does not cause prejudice nor does it result in manifest injustice to the petitioner herein necessitating interference by this Court in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. The Court below shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:03.02.2010 usd