THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.2132 of 2009 ORDER: The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.97 of 2007 in the Court of Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy, against respondents 2 to 8, for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The petitioner-Association filed I.A.No.527 of 2007, to implead it. It was pleaded that the 1st respondent sold the suit schedule property in favour of the 6th respondent-society, in the year 1983-84, and thereafter, the 6th respondent obtained a lay out by dividing this land into plots. The members of the petitioner-Association are said to have purchased some plots. It was alleged that the 1st respondent filed the suit and the other respondents are colluding with him, obviously to defraud the purchasers. The application was opposed by the 1st respondent. Through its order, dated 20.04.2008, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this revision petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the 1st respondent. Admittedly, there are no transactions between the petitioner, on the one hand, and the 1st respondent, on the other hand. The basis for the petitioner to file the I.A., is that, the 1st respondent sold the suit schedule property in favour of the 6th respondent-society, in the year 1983-84, and after the land was divided into plots, the members of the petitioner-Association purchased some of them. A perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner discloses that no particulars of the alleged purchases made by the members of the petitioner, were mentioned. A vague and general allegation was made, in this regard. When valuable rights of the parties are involved, the petitioner cannot be impleaded, on the basis of such unfounded allegations. The trial Court has proceeded on correct lines, and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under revision. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, made clear that, in case the petitioner is able to place sufficient material before the trial Court, to the effect that he suit schedule property, or part of it, was purchased by the members of the petitioner-Association, it shall be open to it, to file fresh application, duly furnishing the particulars of the purchases, said to have been made by the members of the petitioner, from out of the suit schedule property. If such an application is filed, it shall be considered, on its own merits. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:15.10.2009 GJ