THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.4580 of 2007 Date of Order: 12-11-2010 Between: Gudapati Sambasiva Rao ..Petitioner And 1.VeevalliSeetha Mahalakshmi and others ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.4580 of 2007 Oral order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in dismissing I.A.No.356 of 2007 in I.A.No.1213 of 2006 in O.S.No.150 of 2006 filed to implead the petitioner therein as 12th respondent in I.A.No.1213 of 2006. Respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs filed I.A.No.1213 of 2006 for auctioning the lease hold rights of the plaint schedule property in between the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 11 in the suit till the disposal of the suit stating that the above suit was filed against the defendants 1 to 11 for partition of the suit schedule property into three equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiffs; and against the defendants No.12 for permanent injunction restraining him for ever interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property either by encroaching into it or otherwise. On allowing I.A.No.1213 of 2006, the petitioner/12th defendant filed the present I.A.No.356 of 2007 for impleadment. The said petition was dismissed by the lower court on the ground that the suit filed by the plaintiffs for partition against the defendants is pending and the petitioner has not filed any application for impleading himself in the main suit as one of the defendants and filed only the present application to implead himself as party in I.A.No.1213 of 2006 without impleading as party in the main suit; and it is for him to come forward with an application to implead himself as one of the defendants in the main suit but not in the application. Questioning the same the present revision has been filed. The notice sent to the first respondent was returned unnerved, as she left the village. Since no adverse orders affecting the rights of the respondents are being passed and they will be given an opportunity to contest the I.A. in the lower court, this revision is disposed of dispensing the notice to the respondents. In I.A.No.1213 of 2006 filed by the plaintiffs, it is categorically asserted that they are claiming relief of permanent injunction against the 12th defendant. The lower court fell in error in observing that the petitioner without impleading him as party in the suit cannot be impleaded in I.A.No.1213 of 2006. Whether the petitioner is a proper and necessary party to the I.A. has not been gone into by the trial court and dismissed the same for the reasons afore mentioned. On dismissing the I.A. the lower court committed an illegality in exercise of jurisdiction. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in I.A.No.356 of 2007 in I.A.No.1213 of 2006 in O.S.No.150 of 2006 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the lower court to decide the I.A.No.356 of 2007 afresh whether the petitioner is a necessary and proper party to implead him in I.A. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 12-11-2010 Murthy