IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3460 of 2010 Between: Sri Hanuman and Amba Bhavani Temple .. Petitioner AND Nirmala Devi & 10 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3460 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri M. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K. Govardhan Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5. 2. The civil revision petition is directed against the order in I.A.No.221 of 2010 in O.S.No.47 of 2009, on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar, dated 19.07.2010, by which the petition for impleadment of the revision petitioner as the 5th defendant in the suit was dismissed without costs. 3. While the revision petitioner claimed the land of Ac.3.30 guntas in S.No.7 and 8 of Mahabubnagar to be Service Inam lands of the revision petitioner, the defendants in the suit did not oppose the request for impleadment, but the plaintiffs opposed the same. 4. The trial Court passed the impugned order noting that while the plaintiff being the dominus litus is entitled to choose his opponent, it is also seen that in W.A.No.1193 of 1998 arising out of W.P.No.2163 of 1996, the claim of the revision petitioner has been negatived. Opining that any request of the revision petitioner is barred by Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “C.P.C”), the trial Court dismissed the petition without costs. 5. The revision petitioner challenges the said order on the ground that in W.P.No.2163 of 1996, it was held that certain extent of disputed land was endowed to the temple and the Endowment Department was directed to take steps for protection of the interest of the temple. The revision petitioner claimed that under the circumstances, the presence of the revision petitioner in the suit is necessary for complete and proper adjudication of the suit. 6. The point for consideration is whether the revision petitioner ought to have been impleaded as a party to the suit as a proper or necessary party. 7. The District Collector in Case No.B2/Endts 5/95 concluded on 23.12.1995 that the disputed lands are patta lands and were described as such in the Khasra Pahani in 1954-55 against which the Endowment Department had not taken any steps since then. In W.P.No.2163 of 1996, filed by the revision petitioner against the same, the Collector was considered to have rightly held that the lands are the patta lands of the first respondent therein. The Division Bench agreed with the same in W.A.No.1193 of 1998 and admittedly, the judgment in Writ Appeal had become final with no further challenge against the same. If so, the opinion of the trial Court that the present request of the revision petitioner is ex facie barred by res judicata under Section 11 C.P.C cannot be considered incorrect when the revision petitioner and Anantha Padmanaba Chary, through whom the plaintiffs in the present suit are claiming, were parties to the earlier litigation and the same questions were in issue regarding the same subject matter. 8. Therefore, the impugned order does not appear to be interferable in exercise of the restricted revisional jurisdiction of this Court and, accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs at the stage of admission. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 14th September, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3460 of 2010 Date: 14th September, 2011 KL