THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5240 of 2011 Dated: 16-12-2011 Oral Order: This is a misconceived revision directed against the order dated 2nd June, 2011 of the learned III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam rejecting I.A.No. 1164 of 2010 preferred by the revision petitioner in O.S.No. 660 of 2007. The revision petitioner filed I.A.No. 1164 of 2010 under Order I Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as the 3rd defendant in the suit. The suit is filed by respondents 3 and 4 herein against respondents 1 and 2 for their eviction from the suit schedule shop room. According to the revision petitioner, respondents 1 and 2 (who are the defendants in the suit) had already vacated the suit schedule premises. The case of the petitioner is that she is the owner of the suit schedule property having purchased the same from the vendees of the plaintiff’s father. It is the further case of the revision petitioner that after respondents 1 and 2 vacated the schedule premises she leased it out to one Vikram Singh for pursuing business in plastic items. The petitioner further pleaded in the I.A. that respondents 1 and 2 herein while vacating the suit schedule premises and handing over the premises to her, informed her that the suit had been filed by respondents 3 and 4 herein claiming ownership of the premises and seeking eviction of respondents 1 and 2. Since respondents 1 and 2 have vacated the suit schedule premises, the petitioner suffers no prejudice, as the suit itself becomes infructuous, if the said fact were there. It is a fact for true. Since the current tenant of the revision petitioner Vikram Singh is not stated to have been impleaded as a defendant in the suit, the petitioner suffers no prejudice on that account either. The suit by respondents 3 and 4 is not for declaration of title and since the revision petitioner was not impleaded as the defendant, no finding or order therein would in any manner bind her either on the principle of resjudicata or constructive resjudicata; nor would the judgment in a suit of this nature be a judgment in rem. The entire litigative strategy of the petitioner in trying to get impleaded in the suit is therefore jejune and misconceived. On the aforesaid analysis, the order of the Court below is impeccable and warrants no interference in exercise of this Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The revision is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 16th December, 2011. GRR