P VIMALLADEVI Vs. C SUBOJINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent filed o. S. No. 226 of 2004 in the Court of i Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal against the petitioners and the second respondent, initially, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. An order of status quo is said to have been passed. At the instance of the first respondent, the trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner, to note the physical features. It is stated that the report is silent as to the possession of the petitioners over the suit schedule property, but gave an indication to the effect that an extent of 17 square yards of land out of the suit schedule property was encroached by the petitioners. Thereupon, the first respondent filed an application to amend the plaint to incorporate the plea of declaration of title and recovery of possession.

(2.) THE petitioners filed their written statement pleading their own independent title to the suit schedule property, and denying the claim of the first respondent. In addition, they have made a counter-claim against the first respondent for perpetual injunction visa-vis the property. Some other proceedings, such as O. S. No. 54 of 2006 ensued between the parties herein and some others.

(3.) THE petitioners filed I. A. No. 530 of 2006 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC with a prayer to implead the third respondent herein as a defendant in the suit. They pleaded that the suit schedule property, along with some other extent was initially conveyed to them under an agreement of sale and thereafter, it was followed by individual sale deeds. It was pleaded that the presence of the third respondent, as a party in the suit, is essential for effective and complete adjudication of the dispute between the parties. Respondents 1 and 2 resisted the application. Through its order, dated 3. 4. 2007, the trial Court dismissed the I. A. Hence, this civil revision petition.