APHC010544602013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3365] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2600/2013 Between: Konala Venkata Reddy, Visakhapatnam ...PETITIONER AND Puralasetty Suribabu W G Dist and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M RADHAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. RAMA RAO MAVIDI The Court made the following: O R D E R 1. Heard both sides. 2. Perused the record. 3. O.S.No.80 of 2006 before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Anakapalle was a suit for declaration of title and such other reliefs. It seems that the pleadings were presented, issues were settled and the trial was taking place. During this time, a third party sought impleadment as one of the defendants in the pending suit and filed I.A.No.146 of 2010 in O.S.No.80 of 2006 under 1 Rule 10 read with 2 Section 151 of C.P.C. After due hearing, by order dated 14.02.2013, the trial Court took the view that the proposed party was a necessary party and allowed the application and added the new incumbent as the 3rd defendant in the suit. The plaintiff is aggrieved and presented this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, raising contentions as to how the Court below erred in taking such view. The plaintiff argues that the new party was within his power to assert his claims in properly constituted suit which he could initiate but he was not a necessary party in O.S.No.80 of 2006. 4. Having considered the submissions of Sri M. Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and after verification of the case status of the pending suit, it is seen that subsequent to passing of the impugned order, the new party was added, necessary pleadings were presented and evidence was laid on both sides and now the trial Judge listed the matter hear the arguments on both sides. 5. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that exercising its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would unnecessarily prolong the litigation. In fact, all objections raised by the revision petitioner here could as well be argued before the trial Court at the time of the arguments. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 3 6. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE DR V.R.K. KRUPA SAGAR Date: 23.04.2025 SR 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K. KRUPA SAGAR C.R.P.No.2600 of 2013 Dated: 23.04.2025 SR