HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 6178 of 2009 Date: 29.12.2009 Between: Gangireddigari Ramesh Kumar Reddy, Anantapur District. … Petitioner And Yerragorla Gangulamma and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No.6178 OF 2009 ORDER : This revision petition is directed against the order dated 11.12.2009 in I.A.No.1050 of 2009 in O.S.No.597 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri. The main suit is filed by the 1st respondent herein for permanent injunction restraining the 2nd respondent herein from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff with the plaint schedule property. The defendant/2nd respondent herein filed a written statement contesting the suit. After settling the issues, while the evidence of P.W.1 was in progress, the revision petitioner, who is the son of the sole defendant/2nd respondent herein, filed I.A.No.1050 of 2009 under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead him as defendant No.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner along with his brothers and the defendant constitute a Hindu joint family and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the joint Hindu properties. It is further stated that the defendant fell ill and being a cardiac patient, he was not in a position to manage the joint property affairs and therefore, the petitioner had taken charge of the joint family property and had been managing the same for the past more than an year. It is also stated that the defendant was not in a position to participate in the suit proceedings since he had to be taken to Australia for medical check up and treatment for a period of six months. Thus it was prayed to implead him as defendant No.2 so as to enable him to defend the suit claim. The plaintiff filed a counter opposing the said application and the Court below after hearing both the parties, dismissed the application by order dated 11.12.2009. Challenging the same, the present revision petition is filed. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material available on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order under revision. Admittedly, the suit is for injunction simplicitor and no relief is sought against the revision petitioner, who wanted to get himself impleaded as defendant No.2. There is no plea in the written statement that the plaint schedule property is the joint family property, nor such a specific stand is taken in the present application filed under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. Even with regard to the plea that the sole defendant is unable to participate in the suit proceeding on account of ill health, the Court below found that no satisfactory material could be produced by the petitioner to establish the said plea. The law is well settled that the question of addition of parties is a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Impleadment can be ordered only where the Court is satisfied that the presence of the proposed party is necessary to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Particularly in a suit relating to property, the person sought to be impleaded must be in a position to show that he has a direct interest in the suit property. In the instant case, on proper application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below held that the defendant alone was proper and necessary party against whom an injunction was sought and that the proposed party was neither necessary nor a proper party. The said discretion exercised by the Court below cannot be held to be arbitrary or perverse and consequently, the order under revision cannot be termed as erroneous on any ground whatsoever. Hence, the interference by this Court is not warranted. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 29.12.2009 KLP