THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.525 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 19.01.2009 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda in I.A.No.1223 of 2007 in O.S.No.230 of 2007. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the above suit for perpetual injunction stating that the plaint schedule property originally belongs to Kammili Anjaneyulu etc., and they sold away the same on 10.07.1981 to one Boppana Parameswara Rao, who in turn sold away the property to him (plaintiff) on 21.12.2005 and since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Pending the said suit, the petitioner-third party filed the present Interlocutory Application stating that he is the cultivating tenant of the plaint schedule property since 1980 till the date of filing of the application having obtained lease from Boppana Venkata Krishna Rao, who is the father of the vendor of the plaintiff and that after the death of said Boppana Venkata Krishna Rao also he is cultivating the said property, regularly paying agreed rents to the legal heirs of the said Boppana Venkata Krishna Rao and obtaining receipts from them. Therefore, he is a proper and necessary party to the suit. On dismissal of the said Interlocutory Application, the present revision petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the first respondent/plaintiff cannot dispossess the petitioner from the suit schedule property in execution of any injunction order that would be granted, since he is the cultivating tenant of the said property since 1980, and therefore, he is necessary and proper party and the Court below is not justified in dismissing the Interlocutory Application. Admittedly, the petitioner filed A.T.C.No.14 of 2008 before the Special Officer, Tenancy Tribunal-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda against the legal representatives of Boppana Venkata Krishna Rao including Boppana Parameswara Rao, who is the vendor of the plaintiff. In view of the same, it is for the petitioner to establish his tenancy rights over the suit schedule property in the said A.T.C. Since the first respondent/plaintiff filed the above suit for perpetual injunction against the second respondent herein, it is for him to prove his possession over the suit schedule property for obtaining such relief. Therefore, the petitioner is not a necessary and proper party to the suit. In view of the same, no illegality is discernable in the discretion exercised by the Court below warranting interference by this Court. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 26.04.2011 va