THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5916 of 2008 ORDER: Respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.1821 of 2003 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool against respondent Nos.2 to 4 for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The petitioner herein filed I.A.No.383 of 2008 in that suit under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. with a prayer to implead it as defendant No.4 in the suit. The petitioner claimed interest in the suit schedule property. Through its order, dated 06.08.2008, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. The only relief claimed in the suit was that of perpetual injunction. Respondent No.1 felt that his right to possession is being interfered with by respondent Nos.2 to 4. He had no grievance against the petitioner. Assuming that the petitioner had any right over the property, it has to approach the Wakf Tribunal. It is only when a suit is filed for declaration of title and the Wakf Board feels that its rights are involved, it can get impleaded. In Y.Venkata Reddy Vs. A.P. State Wakf Board, Hyderabad and Others[1], this Court took the view that the Wakf Board does not have any right to get impleaded in any suit other than the one for declaration of title. The order under revision accords with the said judgment. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:07.12.2010 kdl [1] 2010 (6) ALD 382