IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.6262 OF 2009 Between: A.Sriramulu …Petitioner A n d A.Ramakrishna Prasad and others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.6262 OF 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.08.2009 in I.A.No.1224 of 2008 in O.S.No.1202 of 2006, on the file of the VII-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner/ 3rd party, seeking to come on record as D-5, under Order I Rule 10 CPC, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The 1st respondent herein filed the suit against respondents 2 to 5 in O.S.No.1202 of 2006 for permanent injunction in respect of plaint schedule property which comprised several plots in Sy.No.100 (revised Sy.No.100/B) situated at Nizampet village, Ranga Reddy District. An extent of 250 sq.yards in Plot No.8 also forms part of the plaint schedule. According to the 1st respondent/plaintiff, he purchased the plaint schedule property from Mekala Balaiah, Mekala Jeethaiah and M.Narsimha under a registered sale deed dated 26.02.2004 and has been in possession and enjoyment thereof. He filed the suit for permanent injunction alleging that respondents 2 to 5 herein, the defendants in the suit, were trying to interfere with his possession and enjoyment. The petitioner herein, who is a 3rd party to the suit, seeks to come on record on the ground that insofar as 250 sq. yards in Plot No.8 is concerned, he purchased the said extent from the same vendors Mekala Balaiah abd Mekala Jeethaiah, represented by their GPA holder Basheer Ahmed Khan under a registered sale deed dated 21.07.1990 and that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said plot and that he obtained permission from Gram Panchayat for construction of a house also. The petitioner, therefore, seeks to come on record as a person interested in a portion of the subject matter of the suit as absolute owner and possessor thereof. The petitioner further contends that his vendors have sold the said Plot No.8 in his favour as long back as in 1990 under a registered sale deed. The alleged sale deed in favour of the 1st plaintiff is not valid and binding on the petitioner insofar as the said Plot No.8 is concerned. The petitioner also filed encumbrance certificate in support of his claim of purchase of Plot No.8 in Sy.No.100. The material placed before the Court by the petitioner prima facie shows that he is a person interested in a portion of the subject matter of the suit. The learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed his application on the ground that in a suit for permanent injunction, it is for the plaintiff to choose the defendants against whom the said relief is sought. It is to be noted that in the present case, the petitioner is seeking to come on record on the ground that he is the absolute owner and enjoyer of Plot No.8, which is also part of the plaint schedule items. In the light of the claim putforward by the petitioner, his presence and participation in the suit would be absolutely necessary for an effective and comprehensive adjudication of the dispute. 4. Order I Rule 10 CPC enables the Court to implead a person as a party defendant whose presence is considered necessary to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. 5. Having regard to the nature of the claim putfoward and the contentions raised by the petitioner in respect of a portion of the subject matter of the suit, it is held that the petitioner is a proper and necessary party to the suit and is, therefore, entitled to get impleaded as a defendant in the suit for an effective and complete adjudication of the dispute in the presence of all parties concerned. The impugned order, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for impleadment, is, held liable be set aside and is accordingly set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.1224 of 2008 stands allowed and the petitioner is impleaded as D- 5 in the suit. It is needless to state that on such impleadment and filing of written statement by petitioner/D-5, the plaintiff would be at liberty to file a rejoinder and other defendants on record would be at liberty to file additional written statement, if they choose to. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 27th September, 2011 Lrkm