IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.125 OF 2009 Between:- M/s Revanth Chit Fund Private Limited, Warangal Rep. by its Foreman K.Satyanarayana …Petitioner A n d Thatikonda Anush …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.125 OF 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 18-11-2008 in I.A.No.1998 of 2008 in O.S.No.559 of 2003, on the file of the II-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 to implead Sri T.Sudhakar, as defendant No.2, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed the suit against the petitioner-chit fund company for recovery of certain amount due. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the amount paid by him to the petitioner/ defendant towards subscription was not repaid to him. The suit was filed by the plaintiff, who was by then a minor, represented by his father T.Sudhakar. It is stated that subsequently the plaintiff was declared as a major. 4. According to the defendant, the amount was paid back to Sri T. Sudhakar, who is father of the plaintiff. It is stated that the said Sri T.Sudhakar has furnished his affidavit-in- chief as P.W.1. The defendant has, therefore, exercised his right of cross-examination and elicited necessary facts from the said Sri T.Sudhakar, who is being examined as P.W.1 on the plea of discharge putforward by the defendant. For the said purpose, impleading of the said Sri T. Sudhakar as party defendant is not required at all. In fact, the said Sudhakar is neither a proper nor necessary party to the suit. The impugned order, refusing to implead the said Sri T.Sudhakar as party defendant, does not call for any interference by this Court. It is open to the defendant to cross-examine the said Sri T.Sudhakar and elicit necessary facts. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 08th February, 2011 Lrkm.