THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. Nos. 3789 and 3790 of 2010 Common order: These two civil revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are directed against the orders dated 23.03.2010 passed by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the applications in I.A. Nos. 1051 and 1050 of 2009, filed by the petitioner praying to implead him as one of the party- defendant in the suit O.S. No. 2540 of 2008 as also the temporary injunction application in I.A. No. 997 of 2009 filed therein. The 1st respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit for perpetual injunction, against the other respondents herein, namely respondent Nos. 2 to 10, as defendants. While so, the petitioner, claiming that he has been in possession of part of the suit schedule property and that he has perfected his title thereto by way of adverse possession, and that since respondent No.1-plaintiff, in collusion with the revenue officials, dispossessed him from the said property, he is a necessary party to the suit proceedings, and as such, he should be impleaded as one of the party-defendants in the suit as well as the interlocutory application, filed the present applications. The 1st respondent-plaintiff resisted the implead applications by filing counters, wherein she stated that the petitioner, has already filed suit in O.S. No. 89 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the property claimed by him, and therefore, he is not a necessary party to the suit and the temporary injunction application, interlocutory application, and since the petitioner has already filed suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, he can pursue the same, and prayed that the applications filed by the petitioner be dismissed. The Court below, having considered the matter in detail, dismissed the present applications, by the impugned common order dated 23.03.2010, stating that the petitioner is not a party to the suit. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and perused the impugned orders and other material made available on record. The present suit is filed by the 1st respondent herein for the relief of perpetual injunction against respondents Nos. 2 to 10, on the ground that they are interfering with her possession of the suit property. Though the petitioner claiming that he has interest in the suit property, filed the present applications, praying to implead him as a party-respondent in the suit as well as the temporary injunction application, the fact remains, respondent No.1-plaintiff, has sought relief only against respondent Nos. 2 to 10 on the ground that they are interfering with her possession. No allegation of the petitioner interfering with her possession is made by respondent No.1-plaintiff in the suit, and in fact, respondent No.1-plaintiff has not claimed any relief against the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner, who claims interest in the property, by virtue of his having perfected his title to the property, states that respondent No.1-plaintiff in collusion with the revenue officials, dispossessed him from the property, the fact remains, according to his own admission, he having been dispossessed from the property, filed suit in O.S. No. 89 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession, against private individuals, in which the District Collector, is also said to have been impleaded as party-defendant. Since respondent No.1-plaintiff is not seeking any relief against the petitioner, and the relief claimed by respondent No.1-plaintiff in the suit being for bare injunction, and the petitioner already having been dispossessed and he already having filed suit for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession, I am of the considered opinion that he is not a necessary party to the present suit for perpetual injunction or the interim injunction application therein, which are filed against respondent Nos. 2 to 10, and therefore, no exception can be taken to the order under revision, passed by the Court below dismissing the present applications filed by the petitioner and refusing to implead him as party-respondent in the suit and the interlocutory application. The civil revision petitions are devoid of merit and they are accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 3rd December, 2010. IBL