THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2470 OF 2011 Dated: 04.07.2011 Between: V.Narsimha Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND V.Surender Reddy and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2470 OF 2011 ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 25.04.2011 in I.A.No.420 of 2011 in O.S.No.33 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District. The suit is filed by the 1st respondent herein against the 2nd respondent herein for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant/2nd respondent herein from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment in respect of Plot No.1/12 and Plot No.1/20 part situated in Sy.No.8, Margadarsi Colony, Saroornagar Mandal. The Revision petitioner, who is a third party to the suit, filed I.A.No.420 of 2011 under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. to permit him to get impleaded as plaintiff No.2 claiming title and possession in respect of a part of Plot No.1/12. It is claimed that he had purchased the said property from the plaintiff under a Registered Sale Deed, dated 27.04.2009. Though the plaintiff / 1st respondent herein did not contest, the sole defendant / 2nd respondent herein filed a counter contending that there was no dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant in respect of Plot No.1/12 and that the whole controversy was with regard to Plot No.1/15 which was purchased by him under a Registered Sale Deed from the Housing Society. As could be seen, the claim of the proposed party is with regard to Plot No.1/12 only. Since the sole defendant did not claim any interest in respect of the said plot, the implead petition was dismissed by the Court below. Even according to the proposed party/Revision petitioner, he had purchased the Plot No.1/12 from the plaintiff, who is none other than his brother. It is also claimed that Plot No.1/12 had been given for development to the plaintiff. Admittedly the suit is for mere injunction. Hence, I do not find any justifiable reason to hold that the Court below committed any error in declining to implead the Revision petitioner as plaintiff No.2. As rightly held by the Court below, the Revision petitioner is not a proper and necessary party for effectively adjudicating the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant i.e., the respondents 1 & 2 herein. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 04.07.2011 Ivd