THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2938 of 2010 Date: 14.03.2011 Between: K.Ramanjaneyulu …..Petitioner And Syed Yusuf Basha @ Yousuf and others …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2938 of 2010 ORDER: This revision petition arises out of the order dated 1.4.2010 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa dismissing I.A.No.463 of 2010 in O.S.No.303 of 2007. The said application was filed by the plaintiffs in the suit, of whom the 1st petitioner alone filed the present civil revision petition, seeking to implead one K.Pradeep Kumar as plaintiff No.5 in the suit. The said suit was filed for declaration of title and incidental reliefs against third parties. Stating that the proposed plaintiff No.5 also had a share in the suit scheduled property, the subject application was filed under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C., seeking to bring him on record as plaintiff No.5. The Court below was of the opinion that the existing plaintiffs in the suit could not seek to implead the proposed party as a plaintiff in the suit when such party himself did not file such an application. Accordingly, the Court below dismissed the I.A. as misconceived and vexatious. Hence, this C.R.P. by the 1st petitioner/plaintiff. Sri T.V.S. Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that as the proposed party had a share in the suit scheduled property and was also litigating separately for partition of the said property along with other properties in O.S.No.37 of 2007 on the file of the learned VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa, he was a proper and necessary party to the present suit also. It is however to be noticed that the present suit was filed against certain third parties seeking declaration of title in respect of the suit scheduled property and for other incidental reliefs. It is not the case of the petitioner that there is any conflict of interest between the existing plaintiffs and the proposed plaintiff in respect of the suit scheduled property. On the other hand, it is his case that the proposed party had filed another suit for partition, in effect accepting the claim of joint ownership over the subject property. Therefore, if the proposed party was desirous of joining the existing plaintiffs in their fight against the third parties in the present suit, he would normally be expected to file an implead application himself. It would neither be proper nor permissible for the existing plaintiffs in a suit to forcibly implead a party as a plaintiff along with them to prosecute their suit. The finding of the lower Court that the application filed by the petitioner and the other plaintiffs was misconceived, therefore calls for no interference. The civil revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR Dt: 14.03.2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2938 of 2010 DATE: 14.03.2011