THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P. No. 5830 of 2006 Order: This CRP is directed against the order dated 08.09.2006 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni, in dismissing I.A. No. 1447 of 2006 in O.S. No. 337 of 2004, filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking to implead the petitioner herein as defendant No.2 in the suit. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In spite of service of notice, none appeared for the respondent/plaintiff. The petitioner is a third party to the suit. He filed I.A. No. 1447 of 2006 praying to add him as second defendant in the suit. His case is that the defendant is his cousin brother and that he is also one of the joint owners of the suit schedule property along with the defendant and other cousin brothers. His further case is that the suit schedule property is their undivided joint family property and that he has got right in the suit schedule property and that he is a necessary party to the suit proceedings. A counter affidavit was filed by the plaintiff stating that the petitioner is no way concerned with the suit schedule property and that he has no right, title or possession over the same. The lower Court observed that the suit framed is a suit for grant of bare injunction against the second respondent/defendant and that it is not a suit for declaration of title to the immovable property or recovery of possession or for partition and therefore the petitioner is not a necessary party to the suit and accordingly dismissed the petition. Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, has taken me through the copy of the plaint filed by the first respondent/plaintiff. As seen from the contents of the said plaint, it is clear that the suit has been filed for declaration of plaintiff’s right and title over the plaint schedule property and also for injunction restraining the defendant, his men, servants etc., from dispossessing the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property. It is most unfortunate to note that the lower Court, without referring to the plaint averments and the prayer column, has simply stated that the suit framed is a suit for bare injunction. It is the duty of every Judicial Officer to verify the record before passing the orders. Unfortunately, the orders are being passed without even verifying the contents of the petition or the relevant record. In the above circumstances, the revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, I.A. No.1447 of 2006 in O.S. No. 337 of 2004 stands allowed. However, in the circumstances, no costs. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 25.02.2011 Nsr