M. Seetharama Murti, J.

1. These two Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the revision petitioner/proposed 2nd defendant are directed against the common order dated 01.10.2015 of the learned VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad passed in I.A. No. 594 of 2015 and I.A. No. 595 of 2015 filed respectively for the impleadment of the revision petitioner in I.A. No. 466 of 2015 and in O.S. No. 1442 of 2015.

2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/proposed 2nd defendant and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff in both these Civil Revision Petitions. Though notice is served on the 2nd respondent/GHMC/defendant, none appeared. I have perused the material record.

3. The parties in both these Civil Revision Petitions shall hereinafter be referred to as the revision petitioner, the 1st respondent/plaintiff and 2nd respondent/GHMC for convenience and clarity.

4. To begin with, the facts necessary for consideration, in brief, are as follows:-

The first respondent/plaintiff brought the suit against the 2nd respondent/GHMC for perpetual injunction to restrain it and its employees from either interfering in any manner with the suit schedule property or demolishing it, either in part or whole and for other reliefs. In the said suit an interlocutory application in I.A. No. 466 of 2015 is also pending. While so, the revision petitioner having filed the first mentioned two interlocutory applications had sought for his impleadment as a party/2nd respondent in the said interlocutory application in the said suit and also as 2nd defendant in the main suit, as according to the revision petitioner, he is the owner of the property adjacent to the suit schedule property and that he is interested in the lis. Those two petitions were resisted by the 1st respondent/plaintiff. At the hearing, exhibits P1 to P11 and exhibits R1 to R3 were marked. On merits, the trial Court had dismissed both the petitions of the revision petitioner by the impugned common order.

5. The case of the revision petitioner, in support of his request for impleadment in the interlocutory application as well as in the suit, in brief, is this:-

"He is the owner of the building, which is adjacent to the suit schedule building. In the suit schedule building the first respondent/plaintiff is making constructions, which are causing a threat and also endangering the lives of the family members of the revision petitioner. The said suit schedule building, which is under construction, is likely to collapse for not having proper strength and foundation and it being a weak structure. Indeed, the revision petitioner gave a written complaint to the 2nd respondent/GHMC on 30.05.2015 and also a few complaints to the police on various dates in regard to the said constructions being made by the 1st respondent/plaintiff. When no action was taken on the representation given to the GHMC and the complaints given to the police, the revision petitioner had filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 15703 of 2015 against the official respondents therein including the GHMC and the first respondent/plaintiff (8th respondent therein) for a writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the official respondents in not taking action against the 8th respondent therein, i.e., the plaintiff/1st respondent herein as arbitrary and illegal. In the said writ petition, this Court, by orders dated 22.06.2015, directed the GHMC to pass final orders and take appropriate action pursuant to the notices issued to the 8th respondent therein (plaintiff herein) on 06.06.2015 and further directed that the said exercise shall be completed within eight weeks. After the said orders in the said writ petition were passed, the first respondent/plaintiff herein had brought the instant suit against the 2nd respondent/GHMC without impleading the revision petitioner and had obtained status quo orders in the suit. The GHMC had already issu