IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2539 OF 2011 Between: Hunda Shakuntala …Petitioner A n d Hunda Sangappa and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2539 OF 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.06.2011 in I.A.No.68 of 2011 in I.A.No.55 of 2011 in O.S.No.15 of 2011, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Banswaada, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein and two others/D-2 and D-3, under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking to implead the proposed respondents i.e., Sub-Registrar, Banswada and District Registrar, Nizamabad as D-4 and D-5 in the suit, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein filed the suit for injunction against the petitioner herein and respondents 2 and 3/D-2 and D-3 in respect of suit property. The defendants filed I.A.No.68 of 2011 seeking impleadment of proposed respondents, who are Sub-Registrar, Banswada and District Registrar, Nizamabad, on the ground that the plaintiff is trying to alienate the suit land and the proposed defendants may effect registration. The suit is one for injunction and the dispute to be resolved in the suit is between plaintiff and defendants. If the defendants apprehend that the plaintiff may dispose of the land, pending the suit, they have to avail appropriate remedy available under law to prevent such alienation. The proposed respondents i.e., Sub-Registrar and District Registrar, who are registering authorities, are neither proper nor necessary parties to the suit and their presence before the Court is not at all required for resolution of the dispute between the plaintiff and defendants and for the disposal of the suit. There is absolutely no cause of action as against the proposed respondents and no relief also is prayed for against them. As the proposed respondents are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application for their impleadment. The impugned order does not, therefore, call for any interference. 4. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Interim suspension granted earlier stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 23rd August, 2011 Lrkm.