HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.3580 of 2008 Dated 30-11-2010 Between: Gudipati Narayanamma. …Petitioner. And: Muvvala Tatarao. …Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.3580 of 2008 ORDER: This revision is at the instance of the plaintiff who had approached the court below seeking to implead the proposed parties as plaintiff Nos.2 and 3. The petitioner had filed a suit for injunction O.S.No.3407 of 2003 pending before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. The present application I.A.No.2292 of 2007 was moved by the plaintiff alleging that she along with the proposed parties had purchased an extent of Ac.1.50 cents in S.No.20/3 under a registered possessory agreement of sale-cum-power of attorney dated 29-5-2003 and since she has become old and suffers from asthma, she was unable to look after the litigation and sought proposed parties-co- purchasers along with her to be impleaded as plaintiffs 2 and 3. That application was dismissed by the trial Court under the impugned order. Mr. A.V.Sivaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proposed parties are necessary and proper parties as they are co-purchasers and only on account of ill-health and old age of the original plaintiff, this application was moved. Mr. A.Veeraswamy, learned counsel for the respondent on the contrary points out that the conduct of the petitioner/plaintiff is such that she only intends to dragon the suit and this proposal to implead the proposed party is moved almost five years after the suit originally filed by the petitioner and therefore, there are no bonafides. I am inclined to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent inasmuch as the application for impleading is not filed by the co-purchasers but by the existing plaintiff and secondly, the original plaintiff as well as the proposed parties were fully aware of the alleged joint right under the document dated 29-5-2003 referred to above. The proposed impleadment therefore appears wholly misconceived especially in view of the fact that the suit is one for injunction and one of the co- owners is prosecuting the suit and it is not warranted to implead the proposed parties after 5 years of suit. The impugned order therefore does not suffer from any error warranting correction by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Office to communicate the copy of order to the trial Court within one week along with the records if any. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated 30-11-2010 Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.3580 of 2008 Dated 30-11-2010