APHC010072882026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: Between: 1. SRI SADASIVUNI RAMANA MURTHY, S/O LATE S. RAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/OPLOTNO. L,D.NO. 9 KRISHNA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LAYOUT, RUSHIKONDA, VISAKHAPATNAM 1. SRI SADASIVUNI SIDHARTHA, S/O SRI S. VARADA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O PLOT NO. 48, BANJARA HILLS, ROAD NO. 3, GREEN VALLEY, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD 2. SRI SADASIVUNI VARADARAJULU, S/O LATE S. RAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 1 MANSION APARTMENTS, SECTOR VISAKHAPATNAM - 530 017. Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased tomay set aside the order dated 09.12.2025 in LA. No. 397/2025 in O.S. No. 185/2023 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, and allow I.A. No. 397/2025 by impleading Respondent No. 2 as Defendant No. 2 in the suit, with all consequential amendments, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 725/2026 SRI SADASIVUNI RAMANA MURTHY, S/O LATE S. RAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/OPLOTNO. L,D.NO. 9-192, SRI OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LAYOUT, RUSHIKONDA, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530 045. ...PETITIONER AND SIDHARTHA, S/O SRI S. VARADA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O PLOT NO. 48, BANJARA HILLS, ROAD NO. 3, GREEN VALLEY, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD - 500 034. SRI SADASIVUNI VARADARAJULU, S/O LATE S. RAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 1-45-5/10, PEND HOUSE - MANSION APARTMENTS, SECTOR -1, MVP COLONY, 530 017. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased tomay set aside the order dated 09.12.2025 in LA. No. 397/2025 in O.S. No. 185/2023 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, and allow I.A. No. 397/2025 by impleading Respondent No. 2 as Defendant onsequential amendments, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3299] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI SRI SADASIVUNI RAMANA MURTHY, S/O LATE S. RAMA RAO, 192, SRI OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LAYOUT, ...PETITIONER SIDHARTHA, S/O SRI S. VARADA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O PLOT NO. 48, BANJARA HILLS, ROAD NO. 500 034. SRI SADASIVUNI VARADARAJULU, S/O LATE S. RAMA RAO, AGED 10, SITA 1, MVP COLONY, ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased tomay set aside the order dated 09.12.2025 in LA. No. 397/2025 in O.S. No. 185/2023 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, and allow I.A. No. 397/2025 by impleading Respondent No. 2 as Defendant onsequential amendments, in the interest of justice. 1. S LAKSHMI PRAMEELA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 725/2026 ORDER:- Heard Ms. S.Lakshmi Prameela, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.185 of 2023 filed for cancellation of the registered gift deed dated 29.12.2018 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the present respondent No.1 (defendant in the suit) as also for permanent injunction with some other reliefs. In the said suit the plaintiff filed I.A.No.397 of 2025 to implead the present respondent No.2 as defendant No.2. The said application has been dismissed by order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam. 3. Challenging the said order the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proposed defendant No.2/respondent No.2 is the brother of the plaintiff and he was creating some hindrance as also filing the criminal petition. Therefore, the application was filed to implead him in the suit. 5. Learned Principal District Judge has held that defendant No.2 is not a necessary or proper party to such a suit. 6. In the suit cancelation of the gift deed was claimed only against the defendant in the suit and his men, agents etc. There was no need to implead the proposed defendant No.2/respondent No.2. The gift deed is neither by nor in favour of the said proposed defendant No.2. 7. The permanent injunction was also claimed against the defendant and his men and agents from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment. Any averment of creating interference with the suit property by proposed defendant No.2 could not be shown from the copy of the plaint. It is also not the case of the petitioner that any amendment application has been filed in the suit raising any cause of action against the proposed defendant No.2. In suit for injunction only those are the necessary parties against whom cause of action is stated. Consequently, the defendant No.2 is neither a necessary nor a proper party for the relief of injunction as well. 8. I do not find any illegality in the order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam. 9. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ___________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J Dated:13.03.2026 AG 114 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 725/2026 Dated:13.03.2026 AG