THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 137 of 2010, 200 of 2010 and 1698 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: 1. These Civil Revision Petitions are filed aggrieved by the Common Order dated 06.10.2009 in I.A. No.938 of 2009 in O.S.No.204 of 2009; I.A. No.939 of 2009 in I.A. No.707 of 2009 in O.S.No.204 of 2009; and I.A. No.940 of 2009 in I.A.No.708 of 2009 in O.S.No.204 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the applications filed by the first respondent herein under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) to implead the association as defendant no.2 in the suit and as respondent no.2 in I.A. Nos. 707 of 2009 and 708 of 2009, were allowed. 2. Since all the revisions arise out of the Common Order, they are being disposed of, by this Common Order. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit against the second respondent/defendant for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. When the suit was pending, the present applications were filed by the first respondent herein to implead the association as second respondent in the suit and second respondent in the interlocutory applications. 5. The primary object of enacting Order I Rule 10 CPC is to bring before the Court, at one and the same time, all the persons interested in the dispute so that all the controversies in the suit may be finally determined once for all in the presence of all the parties without delay, inconvenience and expenses of several actions, trials and inconclusive adjudication. But, the party who wants to invoke aid of the said provision, must show some semblance of right over the property in dispute. 6. The case of the first respondent/proposed party in the trial court is that the plaint schedule property is a common approach road to the members of the association to go to the public road. The contention that the defendant in the suit high-handedly demolished the wall and make it appear that the plaint schedule property as passage, cannot be accepted at this stage because that is a matter to be pleaded and established by necessary evidence in the trial court. In view of the fact that the claim of the first respondent association is that the plaint schedule property is a 40 feet wide road in the lay out plan and that the members of the association have a right to access for use of this path way to go to the main road, the first respondent has got some semblance of right to contest the suit. Considering these aspects, the trial court rightly allowed the petitions. The impugned order needs no interference by this court. 7. The Civil Revision Petitions are devoid of merit and are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 21.3.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 137 of 2010, 200 of 2010 and 1698 of 2010 21.3.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 137 of 2010, 200 of 2010 and 1698 of 2010 21.3.2011 Between: M/s. Pannalal Ramlal Kimtee & sons …Petitioner And M/s. Kimtee Enclave Welfare Association & another …Respondents