THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1298 OF 2011 27.09.2011 Between: Padala Veera Venkata Satyanarayana @ Burayya And another. …Petitioners AND Padala Veerraju And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1298 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioners are the plaintiffs. They filed suit for partition against one Padala Veerraju, the sole defendant. The suit being O.S.No.351 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry is coming up for trial. At that stage, the petitioners filed I.A.No.1057 of 2010 under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to implead respondents 2 to 8 herein as party defendants to the suit. They alleged that the grandfather of respondents 2 to 8 purchased the suit schedule property in the name of himself and children and therefore, they are not proper and necessary parties. They further alleged that Padala Subbanna is absolute owner of the suit schedule property. After his death, the property devolved on Chandra Rao and Veerraju. The petitioners’ sister Sangeetha Anasurya was adopted by the defendant. As Chandra Rao died intestate, another sister Magapu Ratnam has to be added as second defendant proforma and his children Kanakamma and Somamma, the daughters of Subbanna are to be added as defendants 3 to 8 proforma. The trial Court dismissed the application observing that no such allegations were made in the plaint, and therefore, the application is filed to protract the proceedings. The petitioners would contend that the respondents 2 to 8 are necessary parties not only as legal representatives of Subbanna, who owned the property and also as children of the person who purchased the suit schedule property. This Court is afraid the submission cannot be accepted. Even according to the petitioners, after the death of Subbanna original owner, the property devolved on Chandra Rao and Veerraju. Chandra Rao branch is represented by the plaintiffs/petitioners herein and Veerraju is very much alive. In a situation such as this, there is no necessity to implead respondent 2 or respondents 3 to 8. The order of the Court below does not suffer from any grave error apparent on the face of record. The civil revision petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 27.09.2011 Pln