HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.Nos.3664 of 2011 & 3708 OF 2011 DATE:23-09-2011 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3664 OF 2011 BETWEEN Tammana Ramesh Babu …Petitioner AND Sree Lakshmi Nurusimha Somayaji Vysya Sangam Rep. by the President Gudivada Venkata Gunnaiayya Setty, Machilipatnam and another …Respondents CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3708 OF 2011 BETWEEN Tammana Ramesh Babu …Petitioner AND Sree Lakshmi Nurusimha Somayaji Vysya Sangam Rep. by the President Gudivada Venkata Gunnaiayya Setty, Machilipatnam and another …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.Nos.3664 of 2011 & 3708 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: Since both the revisions are arising out of the same suit and as the parties are common, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. These two revisions are filed by the plaintiff under Article 227 of Constitution of India to revise the orders of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam dated 25.7.2011 in allowing I.A.No.167 of 2010 in O.S.No.37 of 2010; and I.A.No.310 of 2010 in I.A.No.117 of 2010 in O.S.No.37 of 2010. Petitioner-plaintiff instituted the above suit for permanent injunction, in which, the third party-first respondent herein (‘Sangam’) filed the impugned I.As. to implead it as party- respondent in I.A.No.117 of 2010 and defendant in the suit stating that when the suit schedule Choultry was in a dilapidated condition, its ancestors handed it over to the Sangam in the year 1981 and that the said Choultry has been in management and possession of said Sangam. Said Sangam filed O.S.No.79 of 2010 against the plaintiff and the defendant in the present suit for a declaration that it has got a right to possession and management of the schedule property and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants therein, who are none other than the plaintiff and defendant herein, from interfering with its possession and enjoyment and pending the suit, it has also obtained temporary injunction. On coming to know of the present suit filed by the petitioner herein and his obtaining interim injunction in I.A.No.117 of 2010 against the defendant-second respondent herein, said Sangam filed the impugned I.As. to implead it in the suit as well as in I.A.No.117 of 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff contends that the suit schedule property is not the same in O.S.No.79 of 2010 filed by Sangam-first respondent herein and the same has also been observed by the Court below. Therefore, on the principle of dominus litis the petitioner can file the suit seeking injunction against the defendant-second respondent herein alone and since no relief is claimed against the third party-first respondent herein, the Court below ought to have dismissed the impugned applications. The decree, if any, will not bind on the Sangam and therefore, it is neither necessary nor proper party to the suit. Though the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is attractive, the fact remains the third party-Sangam filed O.S.No.79 of 2010 for larger relief of declaration and also for injunction not only against the petitioner herein but also against the second respondent herein and obtained a temporary injunction against them with regard to the suit schedule Choultry. Though the door numbers are given different, the Choultry remains to be one and the same in both the suits. Therefore, to avoid conflicting decisions in both the suits, the lower Court rightly allowed the third party to come on record to establish its possession since it has already obtained injunction against the plaintiff and defendant in the present suit. Thus the impugned order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. Both the revisions fail and the same are accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 Tsr.