THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2602 OF 2011 ORDER : The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.63 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the III-Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court), R.R. District. The suit is filed for cancellation of the Agreement of Sale-cum- General Power of Attorney, dated 28.6.2006 as well as the subsequent sale deeds dated 5.5.2007 in respect of the suit schedule house in favour of the defendant No.2. The suit was contested by the defendants and while the evidence was in progress and the matter was coming up for evidence of P.W.3, the plaintiff/revision petitioner filed I.A.No.308 of 2010 under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to implead one G. Srinivas as the defendant No.3 to the main suit. It was pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the application that the suit documents were created by the said G. Srinivas and thus he played fraud on her and therefore his presence was essential for proper adjudication of the suit. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 30.5.2011 and aggrieved by the same the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and perused the material available on record. Admittedly the suit is filed for cancellation of the Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney with Possession, dated 28.6.2006 executed in favour of the defendant No.1 and the subsequent Registered Sale Deed, dated 5.5.2007 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.2. Even according to the petitioner/plaintiff, the proposed defendant is a third party to the suit documents. However it is alleged that at the instance of the proposed defendant and with his connivance the suit documents had been brought into existence. It was also pleaded that the proposed defendant played fraud on the plaintiff and that the criminal proceedings had been initiated against the said G. Srinivas. As rightly observed by the Court below, having alleged that the said documents were not genuine and were brought into existence by playing fraud, it is for her to establish the same by producing necessary evidence. Since the proposed defendant was admittedly not a party to the suit documents, he is neither proper nor necessary party for adjudication of the real question involved in the suit. It is also relevant to note that the trial in the case has already commenced. Hence the Court below cannot be said to have committed any error in dismissing the petition for impleadment of the said G.Srinivas who was not a party to the suit documents and against whom no relief was sought in the suit. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 18.07.2011 Pnv/gbs