THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2253 OF 2009 DATED: 17-03-2011. Between 1.Bayya Mallamma and others … Petitioners And 1.Bayya @ Sadhu Latha and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2253 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed aggrieved by the order, dated 23-03-2009, in I.A.No.99 of 2009 in O.S.No.1722 of 2004, on the file of the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, whereunder and whereby the application filed under Order I Rule 10 (2) CPC to implead the proposed petitioners as defendants 4 and 5 in the suit, was allowed. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the above application to implead them as defendants stating that by virtue of Will said to have been executed in their favour bequeathing the property in question, they are in possession and enjoyment of the property and therefore, they are necessary parties to the suit. The trial Court after considering the material on record allowed the application. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the plaintiffs who are dominus litis are entitled to add only persons who are interfering with their possession and the issue with regard to the Will cannot be decided in a suit for perpetual injunction, that the trial Court ought not to have allowed the application and hence, he prays to set aside the same. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the same on the ground that the trial Court allowed the application with regard to incidental title and possession has to be established. 5. Under Order I Rule 10 (2) CPC, a party can come on record at any stage of the proceedings when he has got some semblance of right over the property in question. It is well settled that the plaintiff is a dominus litis. It is for him to choose his opponent and to claim relief against him. But at the same time, the Court will take into account a relevant and germane consideration that to the extent possible, all questions raised in the suit should be finally and effectively decided by avoiding multiplicity of proceedings. The primary object of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC is to decide the real controversy in the suit in the presence of all the persons interested in the dispute viz., plaintiffs, defendants as well as third parties. The case of the proposed parties is that in pursuance of the Will, the property in question was bequeathed to them and they are in possession and enjoyment of the property. Therefore, they have got some semblance of right over the property. The trial Court rightly allowed the application and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED: 17-03-2011 Hsd