HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.3696 of 2008 Dated 26-8-2010 Between: B.Sudershan Rao. …Petitioner. And: Saroj Agarwal and others. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.3696 of 2008 ORDER: Aggrieved by the order dated 20-6-2008 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad in I.A.No.1147 of 2002 in O.S.No.1006 of 2001, this Revision has been preferred. Petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit for injunction. The respondents herein who are third parties had sought for impleadment in the said suit on the ground that their interests are likely to be effected on account of the present suit of the plaintiff. The Court below under the impugned order had allowed the application of the third party allowing her to come on record as D.3. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. On 19-8-2010 as well as today, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner admittedly is the plaintiff in an injunction suit and had sought injunction decree against the original defendants 1 and 2 only. The plaintiff cannot be compelled to fight a suit against a third party who proposed to come on record as D.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon decisions reported in RAZIA BEGUM v. SAHEBZADI ANWAR BEGUM AND OTHERS ([1]) as well as RAMESH HIRACHAND KUNDANMAL v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY ([2]) in support of his contention that the application for impleading the proposed party could not have been allowed and there is no direct interest of the 3rd party for the said lis. The decision 1st cited dealt with a suit for declaration of status and the interpretation of Section 43 of the Specific Relief Act was involved. The decision 2nd cited reiterates the principles laid down in the decision 1st cited. Petitioner present action however stands on different footing namely, a suit for injunction where the principles under the aforesaid decisions would not ipso facto apply. It is however to be remembered that the plaintiff does not seek any relief of perpetual injunction against the proposed party and he cannot therefore be compelled to fight the litigation against the party against whom he has not sought for any relief. If the proposed third party has any rights or claims which he seeks to establish against the plaintiff herein, it is open for the third party to institute appropriate legal proceedings against the plaintiff in accordance with law but that would not empower or entitle the third party to get impleaded in the present suit for injunction. The Court below has not kept these principles in mind and as such, the application for impleadment at the instance of the 3rd party allowed by the Court below needs interference and thereby the same is liable to set aside. Accordingly this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Consequently, the order impugned is set aside. The trial court shall proceed with the suit which is said to be at the stage of trial and dispose of the same as it is of the year 2001, preferably before 31st December, 2010. No costs. ___________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated 26-8-2010. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.3696 of 2008 Dated 26-8-2010 [1] AIR 1958 SC 886 [2] 1992-SCC-2-524