THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.R.P.No.3151 OF 2009 BETWEEN: Dasari Veera Venkata Vara Prasad, S/o.Bheem Rao and another …Petitioners and Smt. R. Vijaya, W/o.Rusta, Bhoumansha … Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.R.P.No.3151 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 22.10.2008 in I.A.No.2769 of 2008 in O.S.No.30 of 2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Khammam, where under the learned Judge allowed the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The plaintiff in the suit filed the impugned application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC seeking to implead the Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited as defendant No.3 in the suit for proper adjudication of the matter. The suit is filed for specific performance of the contract. The defendants obtained a loan from the Housing Development Finance Corporation by mortgaging the house in dispute and they fell due an amount of Rs.9,66,465/- to the Housing Development Finance Corporation. The apprehension of the petitioner-plaintiff is that in case the defendant failed to repay the loan and if the Housing Development Finance Corporation puts the house for sale, he would suffer irreperable loss. The application was opposed by the respondents, who are the petitioners herein. 4. The learned District Judge allowed the application holding that there is no dispute about the defendants raising loan on the same property and the documents are with the Finance Corporation and in case the Finance Corporation is not added as a party, there is every likelihood of the petitioner/plaintiff suffering loss and in the interest of justice, to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the proposed party was directed to be added as D3. 5. Heard both sides. 6. In the circumstances of the case, where undisputably, the defendants have taken loan from the proposed party-Housing Development Finance Corporation and the documents and title are also with the Finance Corporation, there are absolutely no grounds to deny the impleadment of the Finance Corporation as a defendant in the suit, may be only as a proforma party. But the proposed party’s presence would in no way cause prejudice to the petitioners, who are defendants in the suit. On the other hand, it would be highly useful for proper disposal of the suit, particularly, in view of the fact that the title documents of the property are mortgaged with the proposed party. Hence, I see no merits in this revision and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 8th October 2009 Rns