THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.6205 of 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 09.10.2009 passed in I.A.No.390 of 2007 in O.S.No.1069 of 2007 by the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2. The petitioner herein filed O.S.No.1069 of 2007 for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. Along with the said suit, she filed I.A.No.284 of 2007 for temporary injunction against respondents 1 to 3 and obtained ad interim injunction. She also filed I.A.No.390 of 2007 under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking to implead the 4th respondent as 4th defendant in the suit and to carry out the consequential amendment, stating that the proposed 4th respondent, who is the henchman of respondents 1 and 2, is trying to dispossess the petitioner from the suit schedule property. The trial Court, after consideration of the material on record, dismissed the said I.A. holding that the petitioner/plaintiff has failed to prove the alleged cause of action against the proposed 4th respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present civil revision petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as the 4th respondent is claiming right, title and possession over the suit schedule property, she is necessary and proper party to the suit. He further contended that the 4th respondent filed a suit being O.S.No.1525 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, for permanent injunction against the petitioner for the self same suit schedule property, and that since both the suits are clubbed, the 4th respondent is necessary and proper party in this suit. 5. Order I Rule 10 CPC reads as under: “Suit in name of wrong plaintiff-(1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just”. 6. From a perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the 4th respondent herein is a permanent resident of United States of America and that as on the date of filing of this petition, 4th respondent is not in India, and therefore, the alleged interference by her in the suit schedule property is untenable. Admittedly, the suit is filed for permanent injunction against respondents 1 to 3 and the trial Court has granted ad interim injunction against respondents 1 and 2. In a suit for injunction, the possession of the parties in the suit schedule property on the date of filing of suit is to be taken into account, but title of the property cannot be decided, as rightly observed by the trial Court. The trial Court has also rightly observed that the petitioner has failed to prove the alleged cause of action against the proposed 4th respondent. Further, since the connected suit being O.S.No.1525 of 2007 filed by the 4th respondent and O.S.No.1069 of 2007 filed by the petitioner were clubbed together, the question of impleadment of 4th respondent as 4th defendant in this suit does not arise. Therefore, I find no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court. 7. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:29.01.2010. sj