THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1699 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against an order dated 03.12.2008 in I.A.No.215 of 2007 in O.S.No.320 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. Petitioner is the third party to the suit being O.S.No.320 of 2005 filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession of plaint schedule property. The said suit was filed against respondents 3 to 6 herein. During pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed the present I.A., under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C., seeking his impleadment as the 5th defendant in the suit. The plea of the petitioner is that plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 are his brothers, that the alleged Will relied upon by the plaintiffs in the suit covered the properties that fell to his share in the partition deed and that the same stood revoked by virtue of last Will executed by their mother on 18.09.2000. The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit resisting the claim of the petitioner specifically contending that the petition is silent as to in what way the petitioner is having interest over the plaint schedule property. The trial Court, after detailed consideration of the matter, dismissed the present petition by the impugned order dated 03.12.2008. Aggrieved thereby, the Civil Revision Petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, dismissed the present application, observing as under:- “….on the mere count that the petitioner is questioning the Will relied upon by the plaintiffs would not be a sole ground to permit him to come on record as fifth defendant. Entire averments of affidavit filed by the petitioner are silent to clarify in what way he is interested in the plaint schedule property of present suit and what prejudice he will sustain if he is not added as a party to the suit. Even as per petitioner, he is a party to some other suits in between the same parties. But, the schedule property covered in said suits is different with present suit. In such a case, the petitioner cannot dictate the terms to plaintiff to add him as a party to the present suit. The convenience of petitioner would not be a just ground to consider the present relief in his favour.” In the light of the aforesaid reasons recorded by the learned Judge, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 05.10.2009 v v