K MADHAVILATHA Vs. C P RAJENDRA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since these three Civil Revision Petitions arise out of a Common Order and the parties are also common, these cases are heard and being disposed of together.

(2.) Notices have been served on respondent No. 1 in all these Civil Revision Petitions. Since respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are only proforma parties, no notices need be served on them.

(3.) Respondent No. 1 filed OS. No. 332 of 2010 for permanent injunction restraining respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from interfering with his possession of the suit schedule property. Pending the suit, respondent No. 1 filed applications for appointment of a Commissioner and for interim injunction restraining the official respondents from interfering with his possession of the suit schedule property. While so, the petitioners filed IA. Nos. 1235, 1236 and 1237 of 2010 seeking their impleadment in the said applications and the suit. All these applications have been dismissed by the Court below. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petitions.