HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 3735 OF 2010 ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the orders dated 14.07.2010 passed in I.A.No. Nil CFR No. 2402 of 2010/18.6.2010 in O.S.No. 153 of 2007 by the IV Additional District Judge, Guntur. The petitioners herein filed I.A. under Order I Rule 10 of CPC to implead respondents 4 and 5 herein (proposed party) viz., District Registrar and Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur, as defendants in the suit. That application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Court below failed to take into consideration the object of Order 1 Rule 10 petition under CPC to add the proposed party respondents 4 and 5 as proper and necessary parties for effectual and complete adjudication of real controversy involved in the suit. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also perused the material made available on record. The main grievance of the petitioners herein is that they filed an unnumbered I.A under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, seeking to implead respondents 4 and 5, as defendants in the suit. For ready reference, Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC is extracted hereunder: “10(2). Court may strike out or add parties: The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appeal to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.” In view of the above rule position, the Court below dismissed the application holding that the Registrar is only supposed to identify the person executing the document and the person who is purchasing the property and he does not go into the title or right of the party executing the document, and it is the look out of the purchaser. Hence, the order passed by the Court below is quite legal and I see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Court below and the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J DATE: 01.04.2011 KA