ORDER :

The plaintiff in O.S.No.206 of 2011 on the file of the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati is the petitioner herein. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the orders dated 24.11.2014 passed by the said Court in I.A.No.580 of 2014 in O.S.No.206 of 2011.

2. The said suit was instituted by the petitioner herein seeking permanent injunction against the first respondent/D1 and during pendency of the suit, the first respondent/D1 filed petition before trial Court under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC and Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice to implead the second respondent/D2 as one of the defendant in the suit being original owner of plaint schedule property for proper adjudication of the dispute. The said petition was allowed by the learned trial Judge against which the present revision petition has been filed. The orders passed in I.A.No.580 of 2014 in O.S.No.206 of 2011 are under challenge in the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as learned counsel for first respondent.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the order impugned is erroneous, contrary to law and is opposite to the very scope and object of Order I Rule 10 CPC as petitioner being a plaintiff is dominus litis, she cannot be forced to add a party against whom she is not intended to litigate and it is for the plaintiff to decide against whom she has to file suit, seek relief and plaintiff is the master of the lis. He submits that in a suit for injunction simplicitor, second respondent is not necessary party or proper party to arrive just conclusion in the suit. He prays to allow the Civil Revision Petition and set aside the orders passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.580 of 2014 in O.S.No.206 of 2011.

5. Learned advocate for first respondent mainly contended that admittedly second respondent is the original owner of plaint schedule property, which petitioner and first respondent are claiming and for effective disposal of the suit and to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to arrive just conclusion in the suit, adding of second respondent as second defendant in the suit is necessary, which petition filed by the first respondent rightly allowed by the learned trial Judge, needs no interference. She prays to dismiss the revision petition.

6. Now, the point for determination is, ‘Whether the order under challenge is sustainable and tenable and whether the same warrants any interference of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution?

7. POINT: Before considering the contentions raised by both sides, now it would be essential to extract Order I Rule 10 CPC, which reads as under:

10. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff: - (1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just.

(2) Court may strike out or add parties: The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant be struck out and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.

(3) No person shall be added as a plaintiff suing without a next friend or as the next friend of a plaintiff under any disability without his consent.

(4) Where defendant added, plai