THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2701 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 02.04.2009 in I.A.No.5 of 2009 in O.S.No.21 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Adilabad, whereunder and whereby the petition filed by the petitioner herein to come on record as 2nd appellant in the aforesaid appeal, was dismissed. 2. Heard. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is in possession of the property and, therefore, he has got semblance of right over the property. 4. Admittedly, the suit in O.S.No.883 of 2005 filed by the first respondent was decreed against the father of the petitioner (2nd defendant) for permanent injunction. Since the petitioner was not a party to the decree, the decree does not bind him. 5. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order I of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) empowers a Court to deal with all cases of defect of parties. It enables a Court to strike out the name of any party improperly joined or to add any person as a party who ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant. The power under this rule may be exercised on either of two grounds (i) such person ought to have been joined, either as a plaintiff or as a defendant, but is not so joined or (ii) without his presence, the question involved in the suit cannot be decided finally and effectively. Injunction is a remedy of an equitable nature and since equity acts in personam, injunction also operates in personam. After passing of decree, petitioner herein filed an appeal with an application I.A.No.152 of 2008 to grant leave to appeal as he is not a party to decree. That petition was dismissed holding that judgment is in the nature of personam. That order has become final. When he was not permitted to file the appeal, he cannot turn around and say he can be impleaded as 2nd appellant. Even, in the absence of the petitioner, the dispute can be resolved as no relief of injunction was sought for against the petitioner herein. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be said to be proper and necessary party for adjudication of dispute in the appeal. Further more, petitioner is no other than the son of defendant in the suit. Such being the position, it can safely be inferred that he must be having knowledge of pendency of suit in the trial Court. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was not in talking terms with his father who is the defendant in the suit. The suit is pending for about four years in the trial Court. He has not evinced any interest to get himself impleaded as defendant No.2. A lame excuse is given by him stating that he instructed an advocate to file an implead petition. If really he instructed his advocate, the advocate would have filed such an application. Petitioner has not exercised due diligence in filing an application to implead him as a 2nd respondent while the suit was pending in the trial Court. Therefore, the Court below rightly dismissed the petition to implead him as 2nd appellant. That order needs no interference. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU,J Date: 02.02.2011 usd