HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3566 of 2010 ORDER:- This revision is directed against the order dated 16-07- 2010 passed in I.A.No.291 of 2009 in O.S.No.282 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar whereby and whereunder the learned Senior Civil Judge allowed the application filed by the first respondent herein under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 C.P.C. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.282 of 2008. He filed the suit against respondents 2 to 6 herein for injunction in respect of 350 Square Yards in Ward No.7, Block No.5, Venkateshwara Colony, Mahabubnagar, out of Survey No.236 of Yenugonda sivar, with the following boundaries. EAST: 30’ Road; WEST: H.No.7-5-51/A of Manohar and H.No.7-5-50/A of Nagireddy; NORTH: Kalva(Drain); SOUTH: Plot of Baleshwari. The plaintiff claims that he purchased the suit property from late G.Venkanna(Poojari), who is the father of the defendants, through a registered sale deed dated 04-04-2006 for a valid sale consideration of Rs.5,60,000/-. The first respondent herein filed I.A.No.291 of 2009 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 C.P.C seeking its impleadment as one of the defendants in the suit. One P.Sambaiah has sworn the affidavit filed in support of the above I.A. It is stated in the affidavit that the vendor of the plaintiff filed O.S.No.177 of 1996 against the proposed party in respect of 20 Guntas in Survey No.236 of Yenugonda village. The suit ended in dismissal on 20-08-2001. The plaintiff therein unsuccessfully filed A.S.No.53 of 2001 on the file of the District Judge, Mahabubnagar. The said appeal ended in dismissal on 18-01-2005. The vendor of the plaintiff, after his unsuccessful attempts in the earlier round of litigation, sold the disputed premises to the plaintiff. According to the proposed party, neither the plaintiff nor the defendants have got any right in the suit premises. The plaintiff filed counter resisting the said application. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on considering the material placed on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the proposed party is a necessary party for effective and complete adjudication of the dispute between the parties and thereby proceeded to allow the application by order dated 16-07-2010. Hence this revision. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-plaintiff and learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-proposed party. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that the first respondent-proposed party is no way concerned with the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 6 and therefore the presence of the first respondent-proposed party is not at all necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute in the suit. Learned counsel tries to convince the Court that the land claimed by the plaintiff and the land claimed by the proposed party are not one and the same. I have gone through the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner herein, who is the plaintiff in the suit, opposing I.A.No.291 of 2009. The counter does not give any clarity that the land claimed by the plaintiff and the land claimed by the proposed party are distinctive. For better appreciation, I am referring the relevant portion of the counter filed by the petitioner-plaintiff resisting the application of the proposed party and it is thus:- “I submit that the real facts of the case are that the person who sold out the plot to me also disposed out of the extent of 0.22 gts., infavour other 15, 16 members i.e., 1. Indrasena Reddy, 2. Rajender Reddy, 3.Karunakar Reddy, 4.Noor Jahan, 5.Mohd.Abdul Kaleem, 6.Nagamma, 7.Sanjeeva Reddy, 8.Abbyad Banu, 9.Sugunamma, 10.Hari bai, 11.Vasantha Rao, 12.Balaksitamma 13.Eashwarama and 14.Raja Sekar, and executed registered sale deed in their favour, as the same way executed registered sale deed in my favour also, but the plots sold out to above said persons in same Sy.No.236 but out of the extent of 20 guntas, which belongs to above said civil case before the courts, and the plot sold out to us was out of extent of 22 guntas but the same is same to both extents i.e., 20 guntas and also 22 guntas. As such the petition under this counter is liable to be dismissed categorically.” The above referred paragraph of the counter, instead of giving clarity, creates more confusion with regard to the extent of land claimed by both the parties. It is a matter of record that the vendor of the petitioner filed a suit against the first respondent-proposed party and the said suit ended in dismissal and thereafter the vendor of the plaintiff unsuccessfully carried the matter in appeal before the District Judge, Mahabubnagar. In this background, the order passed by the trial Court does not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY 8th March, 2011 Vjl