THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 5295 of 2010 O r d e r: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 23.04.2009, passed by the VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 281 of 2008 in O.S. No. 2665 of 2007, filed by the petitioner praying to implead her as plaintiff No.2 in the suit, which is filed by her husband against respondent No.2-defendant, for recovery of money, based on a pro note. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order under revision. Though the petitioner contends that since respondent No.2- defendant with an ulterior motive executed the pro note in her name and further having regard to the fact that respondent No.1-plaintiff under a mistaken impression, has filed the suit against respondent No.2-defendant, she should be impleaded as plaintiff No.2, the fact remains, it is the specific case of the petitioner that she did not pay the amounts mentioned in the pro note, but it was her husband, namely respondent No.1-plaintff, who paid the amounts to respondent No.2- defendant. This apart, it is her further case that the scribe who scribed the pro note, is known only to her husband. The petitioner, herself having admitted that she has not paid any amount to respondent No.2- plaintiff, it is not open to her to contend that she should be impleaded as plaintiff No.2 in the suit filed by her husband, namely respondent No.1-plaintiff against respondent No.2-defendant, for recovery of money based on a pro note. In that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the order under revision passed by the Court below, disbelieving the plea of the petitioner that due to oversight and under mistaken impression, the suit was filed by her husband against respondent No.2-plaintiff for recovery of money, based on the suit pro note and dismissing the application filed by the petitioner praying to implead her as plaintiff No.2. For the foregoing reasons, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in the C.R.P., and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 15th December, 2010 KSR