THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:2443 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 16.09.2008, in I.A.No.6040 of 2006 in O.S.No.561 of 2002 on the ﬁle of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District, wherein the said application ﬁled by the 1st respondent herein-a third party, seeking to come on record as 6th plaintiff, was allowed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the 1st respondent though served with notice. Perused the records. 3. Respondents 3 to 7 herein ﬁled the suit against the petitioners herein and the municipality-2nd respondent herein for declaration that the suit land is a road as per the lay out as approved by the Gram Panchayat, Karmanghat by its proceedings, dated 12.06.1981, and also for mandatory injunction, directing the municipality to demolish the structures raised by the other defendants. According to the plaintiﬀs, they are the owners and possessors of the plots in Sy.No.57 part of Karmanghat village having purchased the same from one E.Balireddy and that there is a 30’ road from Sagar road upto to plot No.45/A. 4. It is alleged that the defendants raised certain constructions encroaching the said road and blocking the access for the plaintiﬀs. Petitioners herein-defendants ﬁled a written statement contesting the suit and inter alia contending that there was no lay out approved by the Gram Panchayat, Karmanghat and the said Balireddy does not have any clear and approved lay out and much prior to the alleged purchase by the plaintiﬀs, defendants 1 and 2 purchased an extent of Ac.0.10 guntas from Balireddy and his sons under a registered sale deed. Defendants further contended that the plaintiﬀs tried to make constructions without obtaining any sanction plan or permit from the municipality and on a complaint given by the Commissioner, the municipality got the basements removed. W.P.No.2321 of 2002 ﬁled by the plaintiﬀs was also dismissed by this Court on 02.04.2002. Defendants further contended that there was no road in the place as mentioned by the plaintiﬀs and the constructions made by the defendants did not constitute any encroachment over any portion of the road. After framing of necessary issues, the trial of the suit has commenced and the same is stated to be in progress. At that stage, 1st respondent herein, who is a third party to the proceedings, ﬁled I.A.No.6040 of 2006 seeking to come on record as 6th plaintiff in the suit. 5. Plaintiﬀ did not ﬁle any counter opposing the said petition, but the petitioners herein-defendants opposed the impleadment of the 1st respondent as 6th plaintiﬀ. By the impugned order, the trial Court allowed the said application observing that no prejudice will be caused to the defendants and in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings the impleadment of the third party as 6th plaintiﬀ can be permitted. Aggrieved by the same, defendant filed the present revision. 6. Order I Rule 10 CPC enables the Court to add any person, who joined the suit as a plaintiﬀ or defendant at any stage of the suit where the presence of such party is considered necessary to enable the Court to eﬀectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. 7. The suit is ﬁled by the plaintiﬀs against the petitioners herein-defendants alleging that the defendants are trying to encroach upon their portion of the road and making constructions thereof. Plaintiﬀs are also impleaded in the municipality as 6th defendant, being a proper and necessary party. The relief prayed for in the suit is as against the petitioners herein and the municipality for a declaration that the said site is a road and for a mandatory injunction for removal of the alleged constructions made by the defendants by way of encroachment to the road, the cause of action for the suit is said to have arisen when the 4th defendant started construction and occupied a part of the road. Defendants are disputing that there was any road in existence in the disputed site. They also denied that they made any constructions encroaching upon the road. The dispute as to whether or not there was any road in existence in the suit site and whether or not the defendants raised any illegal constructions thereof, are matters to be considered on evidence that may be adduced by both parties during the course of the trial. The said dispute raised in the suit is whether there was any cause of action arising between the plaintiﬀ and the defendants and of course the municipality, which is a proper and necessary party to the suit. No part of the cause of action is stated to have arisen either in favour or against the proposed third party. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the application, it is stated that the suit site is to the South of his plot and alleges that the construction made by the defendants 2 to 5 is blocking his passage and therefore he is necessary party to the suit to defend his claim. If the 1st respondent-proposed party has got any cause of action against the defendant, it is open to him to ﬁle a separate suit or initiate appropriate proceedings against the defendants in respect of the cause action, if any, in his favour but certainly his presence is not required in the present suit for eﬀective and complete adjudication of the dispute between the plaintiﬀ and the defendants. The 1st respondent proposed party, in his aﬃdavit, stated that the cause of action for his impleadment arose on 17.11.2006 when he tried to dig the ﬁelds to raise compound wall and the defendant obstructed the same. The present suit was ﬁled in the year, 2002 and the cause of action for the said suit is said to have arisen about six months prior to ﬁling of the suit. Thus, the alleged cause of action in favour of the proposed plaintiﬀ-third party, which is said to have arisen in 2006, has nothing to do with the cause of action pleaded by the plaintiﬀ, which according to themselves, has arisen about six months prior to ﬁling of the suit. The impleadment of the 1st respondent as the 6th plaintiﬀ at this stage, when the trial of the suit is in progress, would certainly cause prejudice to the defendant and his impleadment at this stage of the suit, based on a cause of action, which is said to have arisen in 2006 long after ﬁling of the suit, is not warranted for an eﬀective and complete adjudication of the dispute between the plaintiﬀs and the defendants. The presence of the 1st respondent-proposed 6th plaintiﬀ cannot be considered necessary. Hence, the impugned order, permitting the impleadment of the 1st respondent as 6th plaintiﬀ, is held unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. It is however open to the 1st respondent herein to avail all other remedies available under law, including ﬁling of a fresh suit against the petitioners herein for redressal of his grievance, if any. Consequently, I.A.No.6040 of 2006 stands dismissed. 8. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 15th November, 2011. Tsy