IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4930 OF 2009 Between: Smt. Kotha Pramila and others .....PETITIONERS AND G. Subash Nandaraj Goud and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4930 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 31.08.2009, in I.A.No.411 of 2008 in O.S.No.4073 of 2005, on the file of VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, “C.P.C.”), to implead respondent Nos.6 and 7/proposed parties as defendant Nos.6 and 7 in the above suit and consequently, permit the petitioners/plaintiffs to amend the plaint as per Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice, was dismissed. 2. Heard. 3. The power to add a party under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order I C.P.C. may be exercised on either of the two grounds viz., (i) such person ought to have been joined, either as a plaintiff or as a defendant, but is not so joined; or (ii) without his presence, the question involved in the suit cannot be decided finally and effectively. 4. It is not in dispute before this Court that the suit is filed for injunction simplicitor against defendant Nos.1 to 5. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that during the pendency of the main suit, respondent No.6 created a false document and conferred interest on respondent No.7 (proposed parties), changing the nature of the suit schedule property. Except that statement, it is not stated how the presence of respondent Nos.6 and 7 is necessary for the adjudication of the real controversy in the suit. It is only stated that defendant Nos.1 to 4 are not entitled to change the nature of the suit in any manner. There is no allegation against the proposed parties i.e., respondent Nos.6 and 7 that they are interfering with the possession of the petitioners/plaintiffs or they are making any changes in the suit schedule property. No decree can be passed against them, if ultimately the petitioners/plaintiffs succeeds in the suit. Therefore, in the absence of any allegation against respondent Nos.6 and 7, impleading them as parties to the suit does not arise. Therefore, the trial Court rightly exercised its jurisdiction judicially and dismissed the petition. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J February 10, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4930 OF 2009 February 10, 2011