THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5515 of 2011 Date:26th December, 2011 Between: Elisetty Sreenivasulu S/o.E.Venkata Swamy ..... Petitioner/Plaintiff AND Pandra Danamma W/o.Narasaiah & Anr. .....Respondents/Defendants *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5515 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 19.10.2011, passed in I.A.No.133 of 2011 in O.S.No.227 of 2005 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur, Kadapa District, whereby and whereunder the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) r/w. Section 151 CPC. 2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff. He filed the suit in O.S.No.82 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa District, seeking for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit schedule property. The defendants entered appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the plaintiff. Subsequently, the suit came to be transferred to the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur, and renumbered as O.S.No.227 of 2005. Issues came to be settled and thereupon, the parties to the suit adduced evidence in support of their respective pleadings. When the case stood posted for arguments, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.133 of 2011 in O.S.No.227 of 2005 under Order 1, Rule 10(2) r/w. Section 151 CPC seeking impleadment of Kanta Subbamma as third defendant in the suit. In the affidavit filed in support of the impleadment petition, it is stated that Kanta Subbamma is one of the sisters of the plaintiff and therefore, she is a necessary party to the suit. Para.4 of the affidavit needs to be noted and it is thus: “I submit it is my version as well as defendants 1 and 2 version that back side vacant site of the present suit schedule house was sold for the marriage expenses of the said Subbamma and therefore, as she already obtained her share of property and there is no necessity of her bringing on record as one of the defendant to the present suit, but the defendants are objecting the maintainability of the suit and therefore, it became necessary for me to add the said Elisetty Subbamma W/o.Subbarayudu, daughter of Elisetty Venkataswamy is proper and necessary party to the suit proceedings as 3rd defendant.” The first defendant filed counter resisting the application. It is stated in the counter that the petitioner moved the application after submitting written arguments and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned Junior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the application on the ground that no reasonable cause has been shown by the petitioner for moving the petition at the stage when the case stood posted for arguments, by order, dated 19.10.2011. Hence, this revision. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned in the revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC the Court may at any stage of the suit can permit the parties to come on record as necessary party to the suit for determination of the real matter in the dispute. A further submission has been made that the petitioner moved the impleadment petition in view of the plea taken by the defendants in the suit as to non- impleadment of another sister of the petitioner as a party to the suit. 5. As could be seen from the material placed on record, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit in the year 2003. The defendants filed written statement on 28.02.2004. They specifically pleaded in the written statement that Kanta Subbamma, who is the sister of the petitioner/plaintiff, is a necessary party to the suit. The petitioner/plaintiff allowed the proceedings to go on for nearly 7 years. After conclusion of the trial and when the case stood posted for arguments and even after submitting written arguments, the petitioner/plaintiff came up with an application seeking impleadment of Kanta Subbamma as 3rd defendant in the suit. The conduct of the petitioner/plaintiff in allowing the proceeding to go on for 7 years despite the defendants taking a specific plea that Kanta Subbamma is a necessary party to the suit, does not warrant the court to exercise the powers conferred under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC. The trial Court has considered the material brought on record in right perspective and proceeded to dismiss the I.A.No.133 of 2001. I do not see any illegality or irregularly in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:26th December, 2011. cs THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5515 of 2011 Date:26th December, 2011