THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 3891 and 3895 OF 2011 Dated: 01.11.2011 Between : Nadella Ram Mohan Rao … Petitioner And Sultan Biun Ahmed and 6 others … Respondents The Court made the following:- THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3891 of 2011 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3895 of 2011 COMMON ORDER : These two Revision Petitions arising out of the proceedings in O.S.No.98 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the VIII-Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District at L.B. Nagar are heard together and decided by this common order. The 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff who filed the suit against the respondents 2 to 7 herein seeking perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with the suit schedule property which was described as Ac.3-31 guntas of land situated in Sy.No.105 of Suraram Village, Qutbullahpur Mandal, Rangareddy District. The revision petitioner who is a third party to the proceedings filed I.A.No.694 of 2008 under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. with a prayer to implead him as defendant No.7. He also filed I.A.No.695 of 2008 to implead him as respondent No.7 in I.A.No.90 of 2008 i.e., application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff in the main suit. Both the said applications were dismissed by the Court below by separate orders dated 30.07.2011. Aggrieved by the same, these two Revision Petitions are filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. As noticed above, the suit schedule property is described as Ac.3-31 guntas of land situated in Sy.No.105 of Suraram Village, Qutbullahpur Mandal, Rangareddy District. The suit is for injunction simplicitor. The revision petitioner/proposed defendant claims title and possession in respect of House bearing No.2-066/2 in Plot No.2 admeasuring 395.75 sq. yards having purchased from one G.S. Yashoda Naidu and another under a registered sale deed, dated 2.6.1997. According to the revision petitioner, the said plot forms part of Ac.7-22 guntas of land in Sy.No.105 of Suraram Village and that the possession claimed by the plaintiff over the suit schedule property was false. On appreciation of the documents produced by the revision petitioner/proposed defendant, the Court below recorded a finding that Plot No.2 claimed by the proposed defendant was different from the plaint schedule property and accordingly disallowed the implead petition. On a careful consideration of the material available on record and in the light of the finding of fact recorded by the Court below, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the orders under challenge. Even assuming that the revision petitioner is holding title and possession in respect of the Plot in question, the proper remedy is to file a separate suit against the plaintiff for redressal of his grievance, if any, but he cannot seek adjudication of his rights in the present suit. Therefore, the applications to implead were rightly dismissed by the Court below. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 01.11.2011 Ivd