THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.3612 OF 2010 01-10-2010 Between: K.Srinivasa Rao ..petitioner Vs. The Collector and District Magistrate, Prakasam and another …Respondents. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.3612 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.97 of 2005 on the file of the court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki. He filed the suit for a permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property which is admittedly property belonging to the State and on which he claims to have encroached for a long time and asserting his grievance of being illegal dispossessed from the suit schedule property. In I.A.No.490 of 2005 in the suit the revision petitioner sought an ad interim injunction. The trial court by the order dated 23-08-2007 granted injunction and aggrieved thereby the respondents herein preferred C.M.A.No.3 of 2008. By the order dated 17-07-2009 the learned Senior Civil Judge, Addanki allowed the C.M.A, reversed the order of the trial court (granting interim injunction) and set aside the order dated 23-08-2007 passed by the trial court in I.A.No.490 of 2005. The revision petitioner filed this revision under Article 227 of the constitution aggrieved by the order of the lower appellate court. Detailed reasons have been recorded in CRP No.3221 of 2010. This court has held therein that the suit therein is not maintainable for failing to implead the State, which is necessary and proper party in view of the admitted position that the State is the owner of the property in question. Even in the present case in O.S.No.97 of 2005, the State is not impleaded and only the Collector and District Magistrate, Prakasam and MRO-cum-Tahasildr, Addanki Mandal have been impleaded as defendants in the suit and as respondents in the I.A. The same error is carried forward in CMA No.3 of 2008 wherefrom this revision arises. It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that applications have been filed before the trial court for amendment of the cause title in the suit and the I.A for impleading the State as a defendant and respondent respectively. If that be so, the trial court will consider the same in accordance with law. As an injunction has been granted in the suit which is improperly framed and where the temporary injunction application (I.A) is also unsustainable for failing to implead the State which is necessary and proper party, this court considers it appropriate to dispose of the revision by setting aside the order dated 17-07-2009 in C.M.A No.3 of 2008 as well as the order of the trial court dated 23-08- 2007 in I.A.No.490 of 2005 in O.S.No.97 of 2005. If appropriate amendment applications are filed, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and if allowed the trial court shall consider the application for interim injunction, afresh. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of as above. No order as to costs. ________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 1st OCTOBER 2010 TSNR