IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 5649 OF 2009 Between : Devarapalli Padmapriya ...PETITIONER A N D Nellipuru Narayanayya and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5649 OF 2009 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the docket order, dated 09.10.2009, in I.A. No.240 of 2009 in O.S.No. 9 of 2009, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gudur, whereunder and whereby, the application filed under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C., was allowed impleading the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein as defendants in the suit. 2. The petitioner filed O.S.No.9 of 2009 before the Court below for permanent injunction against respondent No.1 / defendant. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein filed a petition in the suit under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead them as defendants to the suit claiming that they got right in the schedule property. The Court below allowed the said application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it is not a suit for declaration of title and it is only a suit for perpectual injunction simplicitor and so if the proposed parties have got right in the schedule property they have to file a separate suit for declaration, therefore, they are not necessary and proper parties to the suit. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the schedule property is the ancestral property, which is in possession of the respondents and they got interest in the property, therefore, to safeguard their interests they filed a petition to come on record and the Court below rightly allowed the same and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 5. The primary object of enacting Order I Rule 10 CPC is to bring before the Court, at one and the same time, all the persons interested in the dispute so that all the controversies in the suit may be finally determined once for all in the presence of all the parties without delay, inconvenience and expenses of several actions, trials and inconclusive adjudication, but the party who wants to invoke aid of the said provision must show some semblance of right over the property. The claim of the proposed parties is that the property in question is the ancestral property and by virtue of the division of the property, they are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. 6. No doubt, in a suit for perpetual injunction, the title of the parties need not be resolved or adjudicated, but, at the same time, the incidental title of the parties has to be gone into. If the orders in the suit are going to affect the interests of the proposed parties, then, certainly the interests of the proposed parties have to be protected. Therefore, the Court below rightly allowed the petition because the respondents have got some semblance of right over the schedule property. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision reported in Ainala Kumar V Pulakanti Narsi Reddy[1] wherein this Court set aside the order of impleading the proposed parties therein. The facts of the said case are entirely different from the facts of the present case. That is a case where the proposed parties wanted to come on record by virtue of an agreement of sale. Agreement of sale does not confer any right or title over the property to the agreement holder. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU. J SEPTEMBER 29, 2010. YVL [1] 2008-LAP-0-104