The petitioners challenge the order, dated 08-12-2003, passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Jedcherla, Mahaboobnagar District, in I.A.No.251 of 2003 in a.S.No.51 of 2001.

2. Respondents 1 and 2 filed the suit for the relief of declaration to the effect that the acts of respondents 3 to 9 herein are illegal and that they are in no way concerned with the Gandhinagar Trust of Badepally Village, Jedcherla Mandal. A further relief of perpetual injunction to restrain respondents 3 to 9 from interfering with the affairs of the Trust, was also sought. At a later point of time, they filed I.A.No.251 of 2003 with a prayer to implead the petitioners herein. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., it was stated that in C.R.P.No.5491 of 2001, this Court directed that no item of B-schedule i.e., land in survey No.69, shall be alienated and despite the same, the first petitioner sold a plot of 400 yards in favour of second petitioner. The application was opposed by the petitioners. Through the order under revision, the trial Court allowed it.

3. Sri K. Laxmaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the first petitioner is none other than the counsel for respondents 3 to 9 and that the respondents 1 and 2 filed the application with a mala fide intention, to cause embarrassment to the first petitioner and inconvenience to respondents 3 to 9. He submits that the cause of action for filing the suit was specifically pleaded and as of now, it does not permit the impleading of the petitioners.

4. Sri Giri Krishna, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, on the other hand, submits that the necessity for impleading the petitioners herein arose on account of the fact that one of the items of the property of the trust was transferred contrary to the orders passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.5491 of 2001.

5. Respondents 1 and 2 filed the suit for the relief of declaration and injunction. The relief of declaration was confined to the entitlement of respondents 3 to 9 on the one hand and the petitioners on the other, in relation to the activities of the trust. No allegations were made against any other person, including the petitioners. So is the case with the relief of perpetual injunction.

6. It is true that a party to the suit can file an application to implead other persons, as parties to the suit. At the same time it must be ensured that the persons, who are not concerned with the dispute in the suit, are not dragged into the litigation. Either the cause of action, originally pleaded in the plaint, or, the facts pleaded at a later point of time, must support the action of impleading third parties. The relief claimed in the suit must have a direct bearing upon the parties sought to be impleaded. Unless these basic requirements exist, the Court cannot implead third parties just for the asking of it.

7. As observed earlier, in the instant case, the relief claimed by respondents 1 and 2 was very specific and against named persons. It is not as if any fresh cause of action had accrued to respondents 1 and 2 vis-a vis the petitioners herein. Even assuming that the petitioners herein became parties to any alienation, in contravention of the orders of this Court in a C.R.P., at the most it can constitute a ground for filing a contempt application or to institute other related proceedings. The record does not disclose any valid basis for the petitioners herein to be impleaded as parties to the suit. If respondents 1 and 2 have independent cause of action against the petitioners, it shall always be open to them to institute independent proceedings.

8. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.