IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5645 OF 2008 Between: Harish Kishan Chand .....PETITIONER AND Mrs. Abida Nasreen and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5645 OF 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 27.11.2008, in I.A.No.379 of 2008 in O.S.No.502 of 2008, on the file of IV Senior 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 the petitioner as defendant No.2 in the suit, was dismissed. Foreclosure 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents. 3. Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed the suit for injunction simplicitor. On coming to know about the same, the petitioner filed the present application to bring him as defendant No.2 in the suit, so as to safeguard his interest on the ground that he has got title and possession over the property. The case of the petitioner is that he never sold his property to any person and never executed any agreement – cum – power of attorney from which respondent No.1/plaintiff is claming right and that the said agreement was created by impersonation. 4. The power to add a party under Order I Rule 10 (2) C.P.C. may be exercised on either of the two grounds viz., (a) such person ought to have joined, either as a plaintiff or as a defendant, but is not so joined; or (b) without his presence, the question involved in the suit cannot be decided finally and effectively. The petitioner has got some semblance of right over the schedule property. Even in a suit for injunction simplicitor, the question of incidental title has to be gone into. Respondent No.1/plaintiff claims to have derived the title through one Harish Kishan Chand and the petitioner is stranger and is trying to impersonate his vendor. In the factual background, when there is a serious dispute existing between respondent No.1/plaintiff and the petitioner/proposed party, petitioner cannot be denied the opportunity to participate in the suit, so that the real controversy can be adjudicated in the suit. Therefore, petitioner is a proper and necessary party to be impleaded as defendant No.2 in the suit, as the litigation may lead to a result which would affect him legally by interfering or adversely affecting his legal right or legally protecting his interest. In similar circumstances, this Court in C.R.P.No.5808 of 2008 set aside the impugned order and the petition filed by the petitioner therein was allowed. The case of the petitioner also stands on the same footing. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 27.11.2008, in I.A.No.379 of 2008 in O.S.No.502 of 2008, on the file of IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The application filed by the petitioner in the trial Court is allowed and respondent No.1/plaintiff has to carry out the necessary amendments. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J January 31, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5645 OF 2008 January 31, 2011