THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3899 of 2010 Date. 25.11.2011 Between: Rajavarapu Singa Rao … Petitioner And Smt Bejjam Sambrajyam and others … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Chetlulru Sreenivas Counsel for respondents: The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3899 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is filed questioning the orders dated 13.7.2010 in I.A. No. 1071 of 2007 in O.S. No. 102 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri dismissing the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC to add the respondents 2 and 3 as defendants 2 and 3 in the suit. The petitioner herein is defendant in the suit filed by the plaintiff/first respondent herein for mandatory injunction in respect of the schedule property. The case of the plaintiff/first respondent herein is that she is the owner of the plaint schedule property to an extent of Ac.0.05 cents and while she was in her relatives house, the defendant has encroached upon the same and raised structures. That earlier when the defendant tried to encroach upon the suit property, the husband of the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 144 of 2002 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and their men and when the said suit was posted for evidence, the defendant stated that he will not interfere with the suit property and believing the said words, her husband has not pursued the said suit and the same was dismissed for default on 24.2.2004. That taking advantage of dismissal of the suit, the defendant has constructed a thatched house and residing therein without any right, title or interest whatsoever. Thus, the plaintiff filed the present suit in O S No. 102 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri wherein the defendant/petitioner herein filed an application to implead the respondents 2 and 3 herein as defendants 2 and 3 alleging that house site was assigned by the Tahsildar in favour of third respondent herein and they are necessary parties to the suit. The Court below on consideration of the matter dismissed the said application on the ground that it is for the plaintiff to prove the suit averments and the defendant/petitioner cannot dictate terms to the plaintiff and it is open for the defendant to adduce evidence in rebuttal. Hence, the present revision. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and perused the material available on record. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Court below has rightly dismissed the application inasmuch as it is for the plaintiff to prove and establish that he is a pattedar and the defendant has encroached upon his land and illegally constructed a thatched house and the defendant can rebut the allegations of the plaintiff by adducing evidence. There are no merits in the revision warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. _____________ V.ESWARAIAH,J DATE: 25.11.2011 TVK THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3899 of 2010 DATE: 25.11.2011