THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3256 OF 2010 DATED: 17-03-2011. Between The Hindu Joint Family of Sugutoor Rajendra, Sugutoor Ramesh and Sugutoor Basava Linga Raja @ S.Basava Raj, re. By its Manager Sugutoor Ramesh. … Petitioners And 1.P.Raghava Reddy and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3256 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed aggrieved by the order, dated 25-02-2010, in I.A.No.375 of 2009 in O.S.No.3 of 2006, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Punganur, whereunder and whereby the application filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead the petitioner as defendant No.4 in the suit was dismissed. 2. It is stated by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the brother’s son of their grand father namely Raja Chandra Sekhar Royal Y.B.Varu during his life time filed O.S.50 of 1948 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor against the 3rd defendant and his brother late Raja Mummadi Sankar Royal i.e., their father and the present suit schedule properties also mentioned as Palmashi No.342 within the specified boundaries at page No.16 of the decree. Further the said Chandra Sekhar Royal Y.B.Varu died unmarked in the year 1959 and so all the said suit schedule properties have duly inherited by their father namely Raja Sankar Royal and the 3rd defendant herein. Their father died on 11-01-2000 leaving behind him themselves namely 1) Sugutoor Rajendra 2) himself (Sugutoor Ramesh) and 3) Sugutoor Basava Linga Raja @ S. Basava Raj, as his legal heirs. Therefore, it is categorically stated that 3rd defendant and themselves are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. 3. After considering the material on record, the trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner has not filed any document to show that he has got prima facie right, title and interest in respect of the schedule property. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has got some semblance of right and if he comes on record, the issue will be determined once for all and no prejudice would be caused to the respondents and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the entire evidence of the plaintiffs is completed and it is coming up for cross-examination of D.W.1 and at that stage, this application was filed by the proposed party only to drag on the matter, that the trial Court rightly dismissed the application and the said order needs no interference by this Court. 6. Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, a party can come on record at any stage of the proceedings when he has got some semblance of right over the property in question, but at the same time, the party prima facie has to show that what is the semblance of right he is having in respect of the property. The petitioner has not filed any document to show that he has got right, title and interest or possession over the property. It is not his case that he is not aware of the filing of the suit by the plaintiffs. As a matter of fact, the uncle of the proposed party is a party to the suit. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have filed the application at the earliest point of time, but not at a belated stage. Without impleading the petitioner, an effective decree can be passed and no loss or injury would be caused to the petitioner. The trial Court rightly exercised its discretion in dismissing the application. Further, the trial Court has already given liberty to the petitioner to file a separate suit. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED: 17-03-2011 Hsd