HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No. 2661 OF 2010 Friday, the Eighteenth day of June, Two Thousand and Ten Between Smt. B.Sarojini Devi and others Petitioners AND Sri Vinod Kumar Malani and another Respondents THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO. 2661 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India is filed by the respondents 2 to 7 in IA No. 1410 of 2008, who are the defendants 1 to 6 in the suit OS No. 128 of 2007 assailing the order dated 1.12.2009 passed by the learned I Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, allowing the petition filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC and impleading the first respondent herein as defendant No.7 in the suit. The second respondent herein filed the above suit against the petitioners herein for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. After the petitioners herein filed their written statement, the first respondent filed the above I.A. seeking to implead him as defendant No.7 in the suit contending that he is the tenant in suit Schedule ‘B’ property, to which the respondent No.1/plaintiff has no objection. The court below allowed the petition by the order impugned in this Civil Revision Petition. As can be seen from the order impugned, the first respondent herein was paying rents at Rs.3,300/- in respect of the property and the plaintiff – second respondent herein had issued legal notice informing him that the he is also entitled to a share in the rents and since October, 2007 onwards, the petitioners herein are not sending his share of rents and as such he filed the suit seeking partition of the suit schedule property. The respondent No.2 i.e. the plaintiff had no objection for such an impleadment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the court below is perfectly justified in impleading the first respondent herein as defendant No.7 in the suit so as to protect the interest of plaintiff as well as the tenant, who sought himself to be impleaded as 7th defendant in the suit. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the court below has rightly allowed the petition, as no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners herein. Having gone through the entire material available on record, I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari July 2, 2010 MAS