IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO :4219 of 2009 Between: S. Mohan Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND 1. Anilatmaja Co-operative House Building Limited, through its Secretary G.K. Raju, and others. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:4219 OF 2009 ORDER: Aggrieved by order dated 16.7.2009 in I.A.No.1398 of 2008 in O.S.No.1495 of 1982 passed by the learned II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the present revision petition has been filed. The petitioner herein is the 3rd plaintiff and respondent No.1 is the 1st plaintiff and respondents 2 and 3 are the defendants before the Court below. Originally, the 1st plaintiff being the holder of an agreement executed by the 2nd plaintiff in its favour in respect of the plaint schedule property, filed a suit seeking declaration of title over the schedule property. Subsequently, the said suit was transferred to Land Grabbing Court. Pending the same, the 2nd plaintiff-applicant died and his son-revision petitioner was added as 3rd applicant. Later, the LGC was remanded to the Senior Civil Judge’s Court. At this stage, the revision petitioner-3rd plaintiff filed the above application seeking to strike out his name, on the ground that he was not served with any notice and he is not interested to continue in the suit along with the 1st plaintiff. The Court below having observed that it was the revision petitioner who filed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C., to implead him as applicant No.3 in the place of his deceased father and having claimed to be the sole legal representative to his father and having come on record, he cannot turn around and file the present petition to strike out his name and if he is aggrieved by adding him as third plaintiff by order dated 29.8.2008 in I.A.No.998 of 2008, he has to prefer an appeal or revision against the said order, dismissed the above application. Having aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. On a perusal of the material available on record, it is apparent that the revision petitioner himself has filed the petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C., to implead him as applicant No.3 in the place of his deceased father. Having come on record as desired, he cannot file the present application seeking to strike out his name. The approach of the revision petitioner is not a bonafide one. Therefore, I feel that the order of the Court below does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality warranting interference of this Court and hence, the present revision is liable to be dismissed. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner sought for granting liberty to avail the remedies that are open under law. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted as sought for. No order as to costs. _________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari Date: 11th September, 2009 Nn. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:4219 OF 2009 11.09.2009