THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4536 OF 2009 DT.06.08.2010 Between: Mantri Hanumanyamma and another ………………..Petitioners Vs Chiratanagandla Lakshmi Kameswari and two others. ………………Respondents. O R D E R: This revision petition is filed by the petitioner/first defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order, dated 15.07.2009 passed in I.A.No.164 of 2009 in O.S.No.1621 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, wherein the application filed by the petitioner/first defendant seeking to implead the proposed party as third respondent in the suit was dismissed on the ground that there is no cause of action against the third respondent to implead him as a party to the suit and more over the suit filed by the plaintiff is for injunction simplicitor, to which there is no need to implead the third respondent, against whom no relief was sought for by the plaintiffs. Heard Sri P.Vijaya Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.Pedda Babu, learned counsel for the respondents. The case of the petitioner is that the fist respondent filed O.S.No.1621 of 2003 seeking the relief of injunction against the petitioner herein. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice that on an earlier occasion, this court in a similar matter in C.R.P.No.1023 of 2008 allowed the revision holding that the proposed party is no otherthan a vendor of the main defendant in the suit and especially, it is an institution and instead of going into the merits of the case, it would have been more apt on behalf of the court below to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to implead the third respondent. The point that arise for consideration is as to whether it is necessary to bring on record the institution as third respondent to the suit. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the proposed party, which is an institution is a stranger to the dispute and there is no cause of action against the proposed party. The learned counsel also submits that the proposed party is in no way concerned with the property and is not claiming interest in respect of the properties. Therefore, it is not necessary to implead the proposed party as third respondent to the suit. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents and having regard to the reasons given by the court below in dismissing the application, I do not find any error apparent to interfere with the order of the court below. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO J., Dt.06.08.2010 tjs