THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.3752 OF 2010 23-09-2010 Between: Gonugunta Badarinadh son of Gopal ..Petitioner Vs. Biyyapu Sreemannarayana and others …Respondents. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.3752 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER The revision is misconceived. The revision petitioner is a third party to O.S.No.1 of 2010 on the file of the Court of I Additional District Judge, Ongole. The suit was filed by the respondent Nos.9 and 10 herein seeking partition of the Plaint “A” schedule properties into three (3) equal shares and to allot one (1) such share to the first plaintiff; for partition of “B” schedule properties into 12 equal shares and to allot two (2) such shares to the plaintiffs 1 and 2; and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.6 from making illegal constructions in the schedule properties till partition is effected and to grant mesne profits from the date of the suit against the defendants. The respondent Nos.1 to 8 herein were impleaded as defendants to the suit. The revision petitioner filed I.A.No.391 of 2010 claiming to be a third party to the suit proceedings and seeking permission to deposit monthly lease amount of Rs.1000/- into the Court asserting that the 6th defendant had leased out the property to him under a registered lease deed dated 16-01-2010 and in respect of which he claims to have obtained a VAT certificate from Commercial Taxes Department and to have constructed a building in item No.2 of the “A” schedule property to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and the defendants. He thereafter filed I.A.No.153 of 2010 seeking to be impleaded as a defendant in the suit. This application, I.A.No.153 of 2010, was resisted by the plaintiffs. The court below by the order impugned rejected I.A.No.153 of 2010 holding that the suit is for partition of the shares of the plaintiffs and the defendants; that the applicant is a third party claiming to be a lessee under the 6th defendant; his rights and whether there was a subsisting and valid lease between him and 6th defendant cannot be decided in a suit for partition; and that if the applicant has any independent grievance, he will have to pursue remedies in a separate suit but cannot compel the plaintiffs to pursue the litigation against him in the suit as he has no nexus with the reliefs claimed in the suit, namely, partition of the suit schedule properties. This court discerns no error either in the application of law or in exercise of discretion by the court below in rejecting I.A.No.153 of 2010 in O.S.No.1 of 2010 by the order dated 03-06- 2010, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There are no merits. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 23rd SEPTEMBER 2010 TSNR