ORDER : The present Revision Petition is filed against an Order dated 07.01.2020 In I.A.No.890 of 2019 in O.S.No.875 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2. Heard Mr. M. Bala Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner/third party and Mr. S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, assisted by Ms. K.S.N. Majusha, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/plaintiff. Respondents 2 to 5 are shown as not necessary parties to the C.R.P., as per the endorsement made in the Cause Title. 3. The 1st respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.875 of 2014 referred to above against the 2nd and 3rd respondents in the present Civil Revision Petition. It is her case that one Kolli Rama Naidu, father of the respondents 1 to 3 and the petitioner herein during his life time purchased an extent of 200 Sq. Yards in Plot No.14-A and another extent of 100 Sq. Yards in Plot No.14 through Registered Sale Deeds dated 15.10.1975 and 17.12.1977 respectively. He had constructed two portions of R.C.C. Building over the said two sites and was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said house till his death. It is her further case that during his life time, he executed a Registered Will on 09.05.2001 in respect of the said property and another property situated at Gorapalli, Santhapalem Village, Pendurthi Mandalam of Visakhapatnam District bequeathing the same to her and the 2nd respondent equally. In the plaint, it was further averred that as per the Will, Northern portion fell to the share of the plaintiff/1st respondent, Southern portion fell to the share of the 1st defendant/2nd respondent and his 1/5th share in the joint family property out of Ac.0.99 cents situated in Gorapalli devolved to the plaintiff/1st respondent and 1st defendant/2nd respondent equally. After the death of their father on 15.09.2002, the schedule property was devolved on the plaintiff/respondent No.1 and 1st defendant/2nd respondent and she leased out Northern side portion to the 2nd defendant/3rd respondent herein. It was also averred that the 3rd respondent paid rents upto April, 2011 and committed default, which lead to issuance of legal notice on 01.02.2012 calling upon the 3rd respondent to vacate and handover the possession to the plaintiff/1st respondent. It was also averred that the 3rd respondent paid rents upto April, 2011 and committed default, which lead to issuance of legal notice on 01.02.2012 calling upon the 3rd respondent to vacate and handover the possession to the plaintiff/1st respondent. A reply was issued thereto on 11.02.2012 to the effect that the 3rd respondent is paying rents regularly to the 2nd respondent, who inducted her into possession of the property without any default and there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the plaintiff/1st respondent and defendant No.2/respondent No.3. Under the said circumstances, the 1st respondent herein filed a suit for partition of plaint schedule property into two equal shares and allot one share to the plaintiff/1st respondent by converting joint possession into separate possession and mesne profits from May, 2011 till the date of handing over the possession to the 1st respondent. 4. In the suit, the defendants i.e., 2nd and 3rd respondents herein filed a written statement, wherein execution of the said Registered Will on 09.05.2001 was denied. During the pendency of the said suit, the petitioner herein along with his two sons filed the above mentioned I.A under Order 1, Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘C.P.C.’) R/w Section 151 of CPC seeking to permit them to be impleaded as defendants 3, 4 and 5 in the said suit, contending inter alia that the suit is not maintainable without impleading them as parties. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed a counter opposing the said application. By an Order dated 07.01.2020, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application, aggrieved by which, the present Revision Petition has been preferred. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the Order of the learned Trial Court is unsustainable, as it failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it, by appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in a proper perspective. He submits that there is no dispute that the petitioner/3rd party is the brother of respondents 1 to 3 herein. 6. It is his contention that in a suit for partition, all the family members are required to be added as parties, more particularly, in the present case, as the execution of Will is disputed, all the members have share in the property. 6. It is his contention that in a suit for partition, all the family members are required to be added as parties, more particularly, in the present case, as the execution of Will is disputed, all the members have share in the property. He submits that the learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the I.A in question on the assumption that the proposed parties had not denied the execution of Will, that it is the self-acquired property of the executant of the Will and therefore the proposed parties are not necessary parties. He submits that in the light of the specific defence taken in the written statement filed by the defendants/sisters, the learned Trial Court should have allowed the application filed by the petitioner herein and afforded an opportunity to file his written statement for proper adjudication of the matter. Making the above submissions, the learned counsel urges that the order under challenge is liable to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff on the other hand strenuously contends that the plaintiff being the ‘dominus litis’ filed the suit against proper parties, seeking appropriate relief in the light of the specific case as set out in the plaint. While stating that the petitioner has not disputed the execution of Will which was registered in the year 2001 and acted upon in the year 2002 after the death of the executant, the learned counsel submits that no claim has been made by the petitioner for the last 20 years. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has no ‘locus standi’ to seek his impleadment as a party to the suit, as he has no share in the subject matter property, which was bequeathed to the 1st and 2nd respondents herein and further that the plaintiff/1st respondent cannot be insisted upon to implead a party against whom no relief is claimed. While pleading that the petitioner had not satisfied the test for adding him as a necessary party to the suit in terms of Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC, the learned counsel contends that if the petitioner is impleaded as party to the suit, its very nature would be changed, which is not permissible. 8. While pleading that the petitioner had not satisfied the test for adding him as a necessary party to the suit in terms of Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC, the learned counsel contends that if the petitioner is impleaded as party to the suit, its very nature would be changed, which is not permissible. 8. The learned counsel further submits that in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court can interfere in the matter, in the event the Order of the Trial Court is perverse or suffers from material irregularity. Stating that there are no such grounds warranting interference in the Order under challenge, the learned counsel would seek dismissal of the Revision Petition. 9. In support of the contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal and Others, (2005) 6 SCC 733 , Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 and a decision of High Court of Madras (Madhurai Bench) in CRP PD(MD) Nos.1664 of 2012 dated 08.11.2019. 10. On a consideration of the rival submissions and the material on record, the point that falls for consideration by this Court is : “Whether the Order under Revision is liable to be interfered with, in the facts and circumstances of the case?” 11. Before adjudicating the point in question, it may be appropriate to note that in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.890 of 2019 seeking to implead the petitioner herein as defendant No.3 in the suit, there is no averment with regard to nature of the suit schedule properties nor the execution of Registered Will by the father of petitioner in favour of his sisters was disputed, except that in a Partition suit, all the family members should be impleaded and in the presence of all the members, the matter has to be decided, but not in their absence. A plea was also taken that the petitioner is interested to implead himself along with his son in the suit. Except that, no specific claim is made that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and the petitioner along with his sons are entitled for a share in the same. Be that as it may. 12. A plea was also taken that the petitioner is interested to implead himself along with his son in the suit. Except that, no specific claim is made that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and the petitioner along with his sons are entitled for a share in the same. Be that as it may. 12. Order I, Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, which deals with impleadment of parties to a suit, which is relevant in the present context, may be extracted for ready reference : “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 bone 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)…………….. (4)…………….. (5)…………….. 13. From a reading of the above provision, more particularly, Order 1, Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure, it is clear that the Court is empowered to strike out the name of any party improperly joined as a plaintiff or defendant and also add, a person who ought to have been joined as a plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before the Court may be necessary to enable it to effectually and completely adjudicate and settle all the questions involved in the suit. 14. 14. In Kasturi’s case referred to above, on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case of a suit for Specific Performance of Contract for sale of property and in that context, the Hon’ble Apex Court formulated a question as to whether in a suit for Specific Performance of contract for sale of property instituted by a purchaser against the vendor, a stranger or a third party to the contract, claiming to have an independent title and possession over the contracted property, is entitled to be added as a party-defendant in the said suit? Referring to Order I, Rule 10 of C.P.C., the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter alia, opined that two tests have to be satisfied for determining the question, who is a necessary party viz., 1). there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of controversies involved in the proceedings. 2). no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such party. 15. In that context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further opined that the question has to be decided keeping in mind the “scope of the suit” and in the facts and circumstances of the said case held that if the person seeking addition is added in such a suit, the scope of the suit for specific performance would be enlarged and it would be practically converted into a suit for title. Further at para No.13, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows : “13. From the aforesaid discussion, it is pellucid that necessary parties are those persons in whose absence no decree can be passed by the court or that there must be a right to some relief against some party in respect of the controversy involved in the proceedings and proper parties are those whose presence before the court would be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit although no relief in the suit was claimed against such person.” 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court ultimately answered the question holding that the stranger to the contract, making a claim independent and adverse to the title is neither necessary nor proper party, and as such not entitled to join as party-defendants in the suit for specific performance of contract for sale. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court ultimately answered the question holding that the stranger to the contract, making a claim independent and adverse to the title is neither necessary nor proper party, and as such not entitled to join as party-defendants in the suit for specific performance of contract for sale. 17. In the light of the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is to be seen as to whether the parties sought to be impleaded in the present case i.e., the petitioner(and his sons) have a right to some relief in the suit and no effective decree can be passed in their absence. As seen from the plaint, the 1st respondent/plaintiff is not claiming any relief with regard to joint family properties, but praying for conversion of joint possession into separate possession by partition of suit schedule properties into two equal shares and allotment of one such share, the right and interest of which are claimed on the basis of a registered Will dated 09.05.2001 stated to have been executed by her father in favour of the 1st respondent/plaintiff and the 1st defendant in the suit. Therefore, the suit in question is not a partition suit ‘per se’, wherein ordinarily all the members of the family, who have interest and claim over the joint family properties are required to be impleaded. Further, as noted earlier, except stating that in a partition suit, all the members should be impleaded, the petitioner had not laid any claim asserting that the properties in question are joint family properties and he has a right in respect of the same. In fact, as observed by the Learned Trial Judge, there is no denial that the properties are not self acquired properties of the petitioner’s father, much less, denial of execution of the Registered Will dated 09.05.2001. Further, the suit is instituted by the 1st respondent/plaintiff on the strength of a Registered Will dated 09.05.2001, inter alia, on the premise that the suit schedule properties were bequeathed in favour of the 1st respondent/plaintiff and the 2nd respondent/1st defendant. To secure relief in the suit, the 1st respondent/plaintiff has to establish the execution of Registered Will beyond all reasonable doubts in terms of Law and can succeed only if the Court comes to a conclusion that the Will is genuine. Therefore, a decree can be passed, even in the absence of the petitioner and his sons. To secure relief in the suit, the 1st respondent/plaintiff has to establish the execution of Registered Will beyond all reasonable doubts in terms of Law and can succeed only if the Court comes to a conclusion that the Will is genuine. Therefore, a decree can be passed, even in the absence of the petitioner and his sons. 18. On applying the twin tests, in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner failed to satisfy the same. As contended by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, the plaintiff is ‘dominus litis’ and cannot be forced to join parties against whom no relief is sought for. Though, there is no dispute that in a partition suit, all the members should be impleaded, the said proposition is not applicable to the facts of the case, more particularly, in the light of the relief sought for by the 1st respondent/plaintiff. Impleadment of parties, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff would enlarge the scope and change the nature of the suit. 19. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the considered view that for the effective adjudication of the controversies involved in the matter, impleadment of the petitioners and others as sought for, is not necessary. In view of the conclusions arrived at supra, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the well considered Order under challenge. 20. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.