THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4677 OF 2009 DT.29.04.2010 Between:; Maddi Lepakshi Sarath Kumar ………Petitioner Vs. M.V.Subba Rao and three others. ………….Respondents. O R D E R: This revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner/third party under Section 115 of C.P.C., assailing the order, dated 07.09.20009 passed in I.A.No.871 of 2009 in A.S.No.37 of 2007 on the file of VIII Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court, Guntur. The briefly stated facts of the case are that in a suit filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for eviction, the court below allowed the suit directing the first respondent to vacate the plaint schedule property within three months from the date of judgment i.e., 17.01.2007. Challenging the said judgment, the first respondent preferred A.S.No.37 of 2007. On 12.08.2009 when the matter was called, the appellant was absent. Hence, the court below posted the matter to 21.08.2009 on payment of costs. Pending appeal, the revision petitioner/third party who is the grand-son of the first respondent, filed I.A.No.871 of 2009 under Order-1, Rule 10 of C.P.C., seeking to implead him as party in the appeal. Since the court below did not find favour with the petitioner holding that the he is not a necessary party to the proceedings, the present revision petition is filed. Heard Sri K.Gani Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri P.N.Murthy, learned counsel for the respondents. On considering the submissions and perusing the material placed before this court, it is seen from the record that nothing has been pointed out as to the right or interest of the revision petitioner over property. Though it has been submitted across the bar that the petitioner has purchased the property, there is no reference with regard to the ownership of the property. In the absence of proper pleadings, the court below was right in rejecting the application of the revision petitioner/third party and I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the court below. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO J., Dt.29.04.2010 tjs