THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.3295 of 2010 Date of Order: 24-09-2010 Between: Chavvakula Rambabu ..Petitioner and 1. Pothabathula bhavani and ohters ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.3295 of 2010 Oral order: Petitioner/plaintiff filed this revision to revise the order of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada in allowing I.A.No.235 of 2010 in O.S.No.704 of 2009 dated 30-04-2010 filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein to implead them as parties to the suit. Indisputably, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the above suit for recovery of amount based on promissory note and redemption of mortgage property said to have been mortgaged by the 4th respondent, father of respondents 2 and 3. Respondents 1 to 3 claim that the suit schedule property was purchased by the Stridhana property of the 1st respondent and they are living therein. The defendant/husband deserted the 1st respondent herein; therefore, she filed M.C.No.14 of 2008 on the file of III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada in which she examined her witnesses and the defendant/husband examined his side witnesses. To avoid the claim laid by her, with an intention to harass her and to evict the respondents 1 to 3 herein from the suit schedule property, the defendant colluded with the plaintiff and got filed the suit basing on the suit promissory note and mortgage deed. Therefore, they are necessary parties to the suit. The lower court allowed the above I.A. On allowing the I.A. the present revision is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contends that the suit is for recovery of the amount against Sundar Rao—defendant and the respondents 1 to 3 herein are not necessary parties to the suit and prays for allowing the revision petition. When the suit itself is for recovery of the amount based on promissory note and also for redemption of mortgaged property, which is a residential house; whether it stands in the name of 1st respondent/wife and purchased with the Stridhana property and the respondents are entitled to the property or not are matters which cannot be decided in their absence. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the lower court rightly exercised the discretion and impleaded the respondents 1 to 3 herein as defendants in the suit, which do not warrant interference. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 24-09-2010 Murthy