THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3969 of 2010 24.9.2010 Between: Alluri Sri Ranga Raju, S/o.Suryanarayana Raju And another …Petitioners and Pinni Uppari, S/o.Subbarao And others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3969 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners are third parties to O.S.No.570 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur. Their application being I.A.No.1110 of 2009 filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, having been dismissed by the Court below, they filed the instant civil revision petition. Respondents 1 to 8 herein (respondents 2, 3 and 4 are no more) filed the suit against the respondents 9 to 14 for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property being the land admeasuring Acs.11.03 in R.S.No.184/1 situated within the limits of Palakol Municipality. The petitioners allege that they purchased the property from the ancestors of the respondents 1 to 8 under registered sale deeds dated 20.11.1978 and 10.4.1980 and, therefore, they are proper and necessary parties. The Court below dismissed the interlocutory application observing as follows. No specific reason given in the petition what loss going to be caused to them if they are not added as parties to the suit proceedings when the plaintiffs are not seeking any relief against them in the suit for bare injunction. If really the petitioners purchased Ac.8.94½ cents from the ancestors of plaintiff, they have to establish their title independently but not in the present suit against defendants-1 to 6. The suit filed by the plaintiffs only against the public authority i.e., statutory body. The question of petitioners’ title from the plaintiffs’ title cannot be a primary issue or incidentally while deciding the possession of plaintiffs. By adding the petitioners to the suit proceedings as defendants 7 and 8, the scope of the suit will be enlarged. The provision of Order–I Rule 10 CPC can be invoked only when the petitioners are proper and necessary parties to the suit proceedings. To adjudicate the dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendants in the suit, these petitioners appearance is not at all necessary. There is no direct nexus between the plaintiffs and these proposed parties. If really the petitioners want to protect their possession, they must seek for adding them as plaintiffs but not as defendants. On any of the reason, this Court is not inclined to recognize that the petitioners are necessary parties to adjudicate suit for bare injunction between the plaintiffs and defendants. The reasoning given in the impugned order does not amount to any error apparent on the face of record. Be it observed that in the suit filed by respondents 1 to 8 in getting permanent injunction against respondents 9 to 14, there would be no effect on the right, title, interest and possession of petitioners if any. As seen from the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioners was opposed by the respondents. It only means that the injunction sought by respondents 1 to 8 is only against respondents 9 to 14 and not against the petitioners, who are allegedly purchasers of the land. If the petitioners are aggrieved by action of any of the respondents, their remedy is to file a separate suit for perpetual injunction. The civil revision petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) September 24, 2010. YS