THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4114 of 2009 Dated:05th December, 2009 Between: A.C.Mahender ..... Petitioner AND 1. C.Rajalingam & Ors. .....Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4114 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 29.06.2009 passed in I.A.No.476 of 2009 in O.S.No.96 of 2008 on the file of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Chief Judge allowed the application of the plaintiffs filed under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment of 1st defendant’s son as one of the defendants in the suit. 2. The petitioner is the 1st defendant and whereas the respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.96 of 2008. The other respondents i.e. respondents 3 and 4 are the co-defendants and 5th respondent is the proposed defendant in the suit. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition and separate possession of their shares. After filing the suit, they came to know of the execution of the gift deed by the 1st defendant in favour of his son and therefore, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.476 of 2009 under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment of the son of the 1st defendant as one of the defendants in the suit. The 1st defendant filed counter resisting the application. The learned Additional Chief Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to allow the application, by order dated 29.06.2009. The said order is assailed in this revision. 3. The CRP came to be admitted on 10.09.2009. An interim stay of further proceedings in O.S.No.96 of 2008 came to be granted on the even date vide CRPMP No.5646 of 2009. The respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs entered appearance and filed CRPMP No.7373 of 2009 with a prayer to vacate the interim stay granted on 10.09.2009. 4. When the vacate stay petition came up for consideration, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the CRP itself is taken up for final disposal. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/1st defendant and learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 2/plaintiffs. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ 1st defendant submits that the proposed party is not required to be impleaded as one of the defendants in the suit as he gets only a share in the properties allotted to the first defendant. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs supported the order impugned in the revision. 8. Indisputably, the property in respect of which a gift deed has been executed by the petitioner/1st defendant is the subject matter of the suit, in which case, the proposed party in favour of whom gift deed has been executed by the petitioner/1st defendant cannot be said that he is not a necessary party to the suit. In that view of the matter, I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judge. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:05th December, 2009. Cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4114 of 2009 Dated:05th December, 2009