THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2969 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 29.04.2009, in I.A.No.466 of 2009 in O.S.No.3368 of 2006 on the file of X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, “C.P.C.”) to implead petitioner Nos.1 and 2 as defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the Original Suit, was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners/proposed parties are necessary and proper parties to the suit in view of the fact that they have got semblance of right in the suit schedule property; that their right in the suit schedule property has already been determined by the competent Court and so, they are necessary and proper parties to the suit and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that the matter is coming up for arguments, and only to protract the proceedings the present petition is filed; that the property is not divided by metes and bounds; that no relief has been prayed for against the petitioners/proposed parties; that the suit is filed only for eviction of respondent No.2, not touching the right title and interest in respect of the suit schedule property; that even if the petitioners were not brought on record, an effective decree can be passed in the suit; that under Order I Rule 10 (2) C.P.C., a party can be impleaded at any stage in the suit, but that has to be exercised in a reasonable time and hence, he prays to dismiss the revision petition. 4. Order I Rule 10 (2) C.P.C. reads thus: “The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.” Therefore, the above provision can be invoked by the defendant or plaintiff as the case may be, in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Therefore, two requirements are to be satisfied for determining the question as to whether who is a necessary party viz., (1) There must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of controversy involved in the proceedings and (2) No effective decree can be passed in the absence of such party. For deciding the question whether who is a proper party in the suit for specific performance, the guiding principle is that presence of such party is necessary to adjudicate upon the controversy involved in the suit for specific performance of the contract of sale. 5. There is a distinction between proper party and necessary party. A proper party is a party where an effective decree cannot be passed in his absence in the case. In the case of necessary party, he must show some semblance of right in the property. Then only he can come on record. 6. It is not the case that the petitioners are not aware of the pendency of the proceedings in the suit. No doubt, the petitioners/proposed parties have got some semblance of right, which has been merely acquired by way of passing a preliminary decree to the extent of granting share in the property of late G. Mysaiah Goud, father of the petitioners, i.e., the suit schedule property. But, at the same time, the suit is filed only for the eviction of respondent No.2/defendant. No rights of the petitioners would be adversely affected, even if they were not brought on record, because they are not necessary parties to the suit. In view of the fact that the suit is coming up for arguments, at a belated stage, Order 1 Rule 10 (2) C.P.C. has been invoked by the petitioners to implead them as defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the suit. In the absence of the petitioners also, a decree can be passed without affecting the rights of the petitioners, in view of the fact that the competent Court has already determined the rights of the petitioners. Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application in accordance with law. There are no grounds to set aside the impugned order. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J October 20, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2969 OF 2009 Between: Doodala Mangamma @ Lalitha Goud and another .....PETITIONERS AND Guniganti Sree Ramulu Goud and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2969 OF 2009 October 20, 2010