THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P. No.788 of 2011 ORDER: The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.27 of 2008 in the Court of Principal District Judge, Kurnool, for the relief of declaration to the effect that the lease deed dated 18-03-2003 executed in favour of the father of the petitioners, shown as 4th respondent, by the 5th respondent herein, as illegal, null and void and not binding upon the 1st respondent-association. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st respondent filed I.A.No.1139 of 2009 with a prayer to implead the respondents 2 and 3. It was mentioned that the necessity to implead the respondents 2 and 3, as defendants, has arisen on account of the fact that the land upon which the leased building was constructed, was assigned, subject to a condition of non-alienation, and the presence of the respondents 2 and 3 would be helpful to the Court, to effectively adjudicate the matter. The application was opposed by the petitioners. The trial Court allowed the I.A., through order dated 03-02-2011. Hence this revision. Sri Y. Kanakalingeswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit is for the relief of declaration in respect of a lease deed, to which the 1st respondent and the petitioners are parties, and the proposed respondents are in no way connected with the subject-matter. He contends that the addition of new parties to the suit would only result in protracting the litigation. A building, which is owned by the 1st respondent-Association was leased in favour of the father of the petitioners. Disputes arose in relation thereto, and at one stage, the father of the petitioners filed O.S.No.437 of 1994 in the Court Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool. It is pertinent to mention here that the Government of Andhra Pradesh, which is sought to be impleaded now as a party, was one of the defendants in O.S.No.437 of 1994. When the petitioners or their father felt it necessary that the presence of the Government, as a party, is necessary, in a suit for injunction-simplicitor, it is all the more reason why the Government must be impleaded in a suit for declaration, vis- à-vis the lease deed. The learned District Judge has discussed the matter in detail, and arrived at a just and proper conclusion. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under revision. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.15-04-2011. KO