THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1440 of 2010 Date of Order:04.03.2011 Between: P.Naga Rathamma and others ..Petitioners and Shaik Shahjahan and others ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1440 of 2010 ORDER :- This revision is filed by the petitioners/third parties against the common order of the V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada in dismissing I.A.Nos.818, 819 and 820 of 2009 in O.S.No.66 of 2007, dated 19.02.2010. The 1st and 2nd respondents/plaintiffs filed the above suit to declare that they are the owners of the plaint schedule property and for permanent injunction against the defendant basing on a possessory sale agreement, dated 20.08.1992, executed by the husband of the petitioners herein i.e., Pallapothu Venkata Subba Rao and his three brothers in favour of the father of the plaintiffs and delivered possession. Since then the plaintiffs are in possession of the property. In the said suit, the petitioners herein, who are the wife, son and three daughters respectively, filed I.A.No.818 of 2009 seeking their impleadment as defendants, as they are entitled to 1/4th share in the suit schedule property. I.A.No.819 of 2009 was flied by a third party seeking impleadment to the proceedings of the suit and I.A.No.820 of 2009 was filed by another third party seeking impleadment to the proceedings as defendant in the suit. The respondents/plaintiffs resisted the petition, by filing counter. The Court below dismissed the I.As on the ground that as per the mandatory provisions under Rule 28 of C.P.C. if any petition for amendment of the pleadings is filed, the parties must specifically mention the consequential amendments, but the petitioners failed to comply the mandatory provisions and accordingly, dismissed the I.As. Questioning the same, the present revision is filed. Admittedly, the suit is not filed against the three brothers of petitioner No.1’s husband and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 5 seeking any declaration against them. As the respondents/plaintiffs claiming to be in possession of the property from 1962 onwards, when a third party interfered with their rights, they filed the above suit for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the defendant, who are in no way connected with the petitioners. The said decree, if any, passed will not bind on the petitioners. If the petitioners are in possession of the property as claimed by them, they can always protect their possession by instituting necessary suit against the person who interferes with their possession. But the plaintiffs cannot be compelled to enlarge the scope of the enquiry in the plaint filed by him. The decree, if any, obtained by the plaintiffs against the third parties, will not affect the rights of the petitioners and the petitioners are always at liberty to maintain necessary suit to protect their rights. In view of the same, no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J March 11, 2011 Lmv