THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3043 OF 2009 DATED:20.04.2011 Between: Gandla Shivaraj. .... PETITIONER And Gandla Pushpamanemma & another. .... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 31.10.2008, in O.S.S.R.No.3043 of 2009 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, Rangareddy District, wherein the plaint was directed to be registered as suit, subject to deletion of the 2nd defendant from the array of the defendants. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff. None appeared for the respondents-defendants. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner herein filed the suit for declaration of his title to the plaint schedule property and also for permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment and also seeking a direction to the Tahsildar, Vikarabad mandal i.e. the 2nd respondent for rectification of entries in pahanies from 1982 onwards by substituting the name of the plaintiff against the name of the 1st defendant. In the plaint, while claiming that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property plaintiff has pleaded that the 1st defendant played fraud on the Tahsildar-2nd defendant and taking advantage of the impugned order of the Tahsildar, 1st defendant was denying the title of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has therefore prayed for not only declaration of his title of the suit property but also rectification of the entries in the pahanies. A specific allegation is made in the plaint that the 1st defendant played fraud on the 2nd defendant and got the lands mutated in the name of the 1st defendant and therefore sought rectification of the said entries. The Tahsildar-2nd defendant also becomes a necessary party inasmuch as the specific relief is also prayed for against the Tahsildar- 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant is therefore a proper and necessary party to the suit in the light of the averments in the plaint. The impugned order, directing the deletion of the name of the 2nd defendant from the array of the defendants, is therefore unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. 4. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 20th April, 2011. Tsy