AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.—The only ground, on which the petition for impleading the revision petitioner as a party to the suit was dismissed, was that the revision petitioner had already filed a suit O.S.No. 1778 of 1998, against the 1st respondent seeking perpetual injunction restraining him from carrying on any further constructions.
O.S.No. 2276 of 1998 is filed by the 1st respondent for an injunction restraining the second respondent from demolishing the constructions made by the 1st respondent.
The fact that the revision petitioner had filed a suit restraining the 1st respondent from carrying on further constructions is not a ground for dismissing the petition to get herself impleaded in the suit filed by the 1st respondent against the 2nd respondent, when it is the case of the revision petitioner that continuation of the building of the 1st respondent infringes her rights, as if the 1st respondent obtains any injunction against the 2nd respondent, it may have some effect or bearing on the rights of the revision petitioner.
Therefore, the Court below was in error in dismissing the petition filed by the revision petitioner. Accordingly, the order under revision is set aside and LA.No. 817 of 1998 is allowed, and the revision petitioner is ordered to be brought on record as 2nd defendant in O.S.No. 2276 of 1998 on the file of the III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.