THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.798 of 2011 March 24, 2011 Between : Prudhvi Prasad Babu Prasad, S/o.Prudhvi Malleswaraiah … Petitioner AND Pammi Krishna Murthy, And others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.798 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.18 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti. He filed the present revision petition aggrieved by the order dated 09.7.2009 in I.A.No.198 of 2008. By the said order, the petitioner’s application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) read with Rule 25 of the Civil Rules of Practice, 1990, praying the Court to implead respondents 3 to 5 herein as party defendants to the suit was dismissed. The petitioner married one Rajani, daughter of the first respondent herein, on 03.9.2006. On 09.9.2006, when the nuptial function was fixed, Rajani died. The petitioner instituted the suit claiming ` 8,00,000/- as damages alleging that the respondents 1 and 2 suppressed the alleged ailment of Rajani due to which she died within three days of her marriage. The suit is pending. In that suit, alleging that Smt.P.Renuka, mother of Rajani, was aware of her daughter’s ailment even prior to marriage and without revealing the same to the petitioner, the marriage was performed, the petitioner filed application to implead her. He also sought to implead the brothers, respondents 4 and 5, of Rajani as defendants. The application was opposed contending that all the proposed parties are not necessary parties and that Rajani died due to negligence of the petitioner. It was also contended that the application is filed to harass the family of the first respondent. The Court below considered rival contentions and dismissed the application observing that the respondents 3 to 5 are not proper and necessary parties for resolving all the issues in the case. The Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that proof of the allegation that the third respondent was aware of ailment of Rajani can be effective only when the respondents 3 to 5 are impleaded as defendants. This Court is not able to accept the plea. The suit was filed for damages arraying the father of Rajani as first defendant. If the petitioner is able to prove the alleged suppression of ailment of Rajani, he would succeed. Proving of such an allegation does not warrant impleading of the mother and brothers of the deceased Rajani. The impugned order does not suffer from any error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The civil revision petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. ________________ March 24, 2011. (V.V.S.RAO, J) YS