IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.NO.3246 of 2010 Date:21.03.2011 Between:- Akakmagari Pentanna and another. ..Petitioners/Proposed defendants And Smt Bheemamma and others .. Respondents ORDER:- This revision is directed against the order dated 17-02-2010 passed in I.A.No.1239 of 2010 in I.A.No.1 of 1987 in O.S.No.31 of 1977 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar whereunder and whereby, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 C.P.C. 2. The first respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.31 of 1977. Respondent Nos.2 to 17 are the defendants in the said suit. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of her share in the suit schedule properties. The petitioners filed I.A.No.1239 of 2010 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 C.P.C. seeking their impleadment as respondent Nos.17 and 18 in I.A.No.1 of 1987. They claim that their father Akkammgari Ramanna was the possessor and owner of the land in Sy.Nos.1/1, 1/2, 2/a, 4, 5, 6, 172, 173, 188, 189, 191, 192, 298, 320, 323/aa, 327, 328 of Tankara village and after the death of their father on 29-03-2002, they got mutated their names to an extent of about Ac.3.02 guntas each in the revenue records. Since their interests are likely to be affected in the event of final decree being passed, they sought for their impleadment as parties in the final decree petition. Their application has been resisted by the plaintiff by filing counter. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on considering the material brought on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioners failed to place any material on record to show their semblance of rights over the suit schedule properties and thereby, proceeded to dismiss their application by an order dated 17-02-2010. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows: “The present petition is filed to implead the petitioners NO.1 and 2 as respondent No.17 and 18 in the main petition filed for final decree. The original suit was of the year 1977 i.e. OS 31/77. The present petition is filed by the petitioners on 10-8-2009 for impleading them as parties. The contention of the petitioners is that they are the owners of the land in survey numbers covered by the main suit as well as in the final decree proceedings. No iota of evidence of any sort that has been placed forth in support of their contention to establish their rights of title, ownership and possession in respect of the said property. If really the petitioners are lawful owners and possessors of the said items of property it is not known how they have kept quiet all the while since 1977 to 2009 without having any knowledge about the partition suit filed and decreed before this court in respect of the said property. The contention of the petitioners that they are the owners of the property is not supported by any documents and as such the same cannot be believed. Even otherwise if the petitioners are aggrieved in respect of their rights they have to approach appropriate Forum seeking redressal of their grievances. Since the main suit is for partition and separate possession of the property between the respondents 1 to 17 intrse and on due consideration the same was decreed it is between the parties to the preliminary decree to put forth their claims in the final decree proceedings. Unless and until it is the claim of the petitioners that they are also having a share in the properties covered by the preliminary decree they cannot be permitted to come on record as parties. Viewed from any angle the petition, as contended by the respondents side, is filed with a view to drag on the proceedings and without any merits. Therefore, liable to be dismissed.” Hence, the revision. 3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 03-09-2010. Respondent No.1 represented by Sri Vijay Kumar Heroor. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners filed a memo not pressing revision against respondent Nos.2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 16 and 17. Accordingly, revision came to be dismissed as not pressed against respondent Nos.2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 16 and 17. 5. Heard Sri K.Someswar Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Vijay Kumar Heroor, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are necessary to final decree petition since their rights are being adversely affected in the event of partition of the suit schedule properties and allotting the same to the parties in proportionate to their shares. 7. As seen from the material placed on record, the petitioners are not claiming the property through any of the parties to the final decree proceedings. The petitioners claim this property in their own right, in which case they are not necessary parties to the final decree petition. They are at liberty to establish their own rights by instituting appropriate proceedings. There is no flaw in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​___________________________________ JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY 21st March, 2011 AMD