VADLA RAMASWAMY ACHARY KUMARA BABU Vs. V LEELAVATHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the orders dated 23-3-1999 made in LA. No.848 of 1998 in O.S. No.101 of 1996 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalli, Chittoor District.

(2.) The petitioner is the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition of the suit schedule property. During the course of the trial of the suit, the first respondent-V. Leelavathamma filed an application to implead her as the second defendant in the suit on the ground that the suit schedule property was purchased by the petitionerplaintiff and the second respondent-first defendant out of the sale proceeds of the jewellary belonging to their mother and also their mother executed a Will bequeathing half share in the suit schedule property in favour of the first respondent, who is none else than the sister of the petitioner and second respondent. The said application was allowed by the learned Judge by the order dated 23-3-1999, against which, the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner seriously contends that the order of the Court below is wholly erroneous and contrary to law. He submits that the lower Court has misconstrued the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') Moreover the presence of the first respondent is not at all necessary for the adjudication of the dispute between the petitioner-plaintiff and the second respondent-first defendant. In such a situation, the application is filed only to drag on the proceedings so as to enable the second respondent-first defendant to continue to enjoy the suit schedule property on one ground or the other. Therefore, he submits that the order of the lower Court is liable to be set aside.