HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 3437 of 2009 WEDNESDAY THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 Between: P. Vittal Reddy .. Petitioner and D.Anjaneya Prasad and another .. Respondents O R D E R:- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 02.05.2009 made in I.A. No. 140 of 2008 in O.S. No. 990 of 2008 by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad, Kukatpally, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC seeking to implead him as 2nd defendant in the suit. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff, who is the 1st respondent herein, filed the suit in O.S. No.990 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad, Kukatpally, for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the land in an extent of 300 Sq. yards in Plot No.173 in Sy.No.63 and 66 situated at Hydernagar village. While so, the petitioner-proposed 2nd defendant claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, filed the present application in I.A. No.140 of 2008, and the same was dismissed. He also states that he filed suit in O.S.No.121 of 2009 on the file of District Judge, Ranga Reddy, for declaration and recovery of possession with regard to the said property and the suit is pending. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order under revision. If the petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the schedule property in question, irrespective of the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction against the defendant, he should file a separate suit seeking declaration and recovery of possession of the property in question, and inasmuch as the petitioner has already filed suit in O.S. No.121 of 2009 for declaration and recovery of possession of the property in question, which is pending, and if the petitioner has any grievance in respect of the property in question, he can undoubtedly approach the District Judge in the suit filed by him and seek appropriate relief by filing an application, but certainly he is not entitled to get himself impleaded as party defendant in the suit filed by the plaintiff. Hence, this Court feels that the petitioner need not be impleaded as 2nd defendant in suit filed by the plaintiff. In the above view of the matter, this Court finds no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 5th August, 2009 bcj