THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.1225 OF 2007 24-06-2010 Between: The Balavatsky Theosophical Lodge, Nellore ..Petitioner Vs. P.Govindaiah and another …Respondents. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.1225 OF 2007 ORAL ORDER This revision is directed against the order dated 21-12- 2006 of the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore rejecting I.A.No.302 of 2006 in O.S.No.741 of 2000. The revision petitioner filed O.S.No.741 of 2000 for recovery of possession from the 1st respondent herein impleaded as the sole defendant in the suit in respect of a site and a building thereon. The defendant pleaded that the suit site does not belong to the plaintiff and that the suit itself is not maintainable as the plaintiff was not a registered society, registered under the provisions of any enactment. At an advanced stage of the trial; after evidence on behalf of the plaintiff and defendant was recorded and closed and the suit posted for arguments, the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.302 of 2006 to implead the 2nd respondent herein as the 2nd defendant in the suit. The singular plea in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.302 of 2006 comprising four paragraphs is “ the petitioner is part and parcel of the respondent and as such, the suit is quite maintainable.” The court below by the order impugned rejected the application on the ground that it is neither pleaded nor established that the proposed party (defendant) has any direct or even indirect interest in the subject matter of the suit, which is immovable property in respect of which recovery of possession was initially sought from the sole defendant. This court finds no infirmity in the application of law or exercise of discretion by the court below, warranting interference in this revision. The petitioner failed to plead any fact, which discloses any legal interest of the proposed defendant (2nd respondent herein) in the suit schedule property or any nexus with the reliefs sought by the revision petitioner/plaintiff in the suit. The fact that the revision petitioner/plaintiff is allegedly associated with the proposed defendant is of no relevance to the issue whether the proposed respondent’s presence in the lis is vital either as a necessary or a proper party to the proceedings. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 24th JUNE 2010 TSNR