ORDER : 1. Plaintiffs in the suit filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. They assail the order dated 23.03.2020 of learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram in I.A.No.112 of 2020 in O.S.No.32 of 2019. By the impugned order, a third party was impleaded in the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The said third party is shown as respondent No.1. The original defendant in the suit is shown as respondent No.2. 2. Sri P.Rajesh Babu, the learned counsel for revision petitioners and Sri G.Vijay Kumar, the learned counsel representing Sri Chakkilam Venkateswarlu, the learned counsel for respondent No.1, submitted arguments. 3. Point that falls for considerations is: “Whether the impugned order cannot be maintained being against facts and law and caused miscarriage of justice?” POINT: 4. Ac.2.40 cents of land in D.No.2-237 situate in R.S.No.378/1A2 and 378/1A3 of Palacherla Village of Diwancheruvu Panchayat in Rajanagaram Mandal of East Godavari District is the property about which the litigation commenced. Four plaintiffs joined together and filed O.S.No.32 of 2019 as against Smt. Erugula Mariya showing her as the sole defendant. Cause of action mentioned in the suit reads as below: “Cause of action for the suit arose on 23.10.2002 when the plaintiffs purchased the plaint schedule property and thereafter when they constructed structures therein and have been in possession and enjoyment of the same and since about a week when the defendant started to interfere with such peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and at Diwancheruvu where the plaint schedule property is situate is within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.” 5. The prayer in the suit reads as below: 1. For grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and her men from ever interfering with the plaintiffs’ lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. 2. For grant of any other relief as the Honourable Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case; and 3. For grant of costs of the suit. 6. Shorn of details, the plaintiffs assert possession based on title acquired under various registered sale deeds of the year 2002. 2. For grant of any other relief as the Honourable Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case; and 3. For grant of costs of the suit. 6. Shorn of details, the plaintiffs assert possession based on title acquired under various registered sale deeds of the year 2002. To sustain the claim of possession they also pleaded about a fact that they earlier leased out a part of this property to a company and subsequently after filing a suit for eviction they got a decree in their favour and they also filed execution petition to obtain possession of the property and finally on a joint memo of decree holder and judgment debtor possession of the property was once again delivered to these plaintiffs and the same were recorded by the executing Court. Thus, in the suit for permanent injunction the plaintiffs asserted their continuous possession based on title. 7. Sole defendant Smt. Erugula Mariya filed a ten page detailed written statement. She denied the title and possession asserted in the plaint. She claimed possession over Ac.1.00 cents of the plaint schedule property and construction of cattle shed by her and denied the existence of structures mentioned in the plaint. This Ac.1.00 cents is stated to be a part of the plaint schedule property. She had not laid any claim against the balance extent of the plaint schedule property. In her written statement she traced events from 1926. Finally, she stated that Sri Kandula Veera Raghava Swamy Naidu became owner of property in the said survey number and on 03.11.2006 he executed an agreement for sale in favour of this defendant agreeing to sell Ac.1.00 cents of his land and she paid part of the sale consideration and before the registered sale deed was obtained, the vendor/executant died. That the deceased was survived his wife Smt. Kandula Satyavathi and a son by name Sri Kandula Babu Rayudu. She narrated about further transactions between her and the above two individuals and stated that on 30.10.2013 the legal representatives of the late executant of agreement for sale put this defendant in possession of that Ac.1.00 cents of land. She further stated that as they were not coming forward for execution of registered sale deed, she sued them for specific performance in O.S.No.594 of 2018 pending on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. She further stated that as they were not coming forward for execution of registered sale deed, she sued them for specific performance in O.S.No.594 of 2018 pending on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. At detail she narrated the falsity of various documents relied on by the plaintiffs. She finally stated that she has been in possession and with a view to disturb her possession this false suit was filed and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 8. In the normal course, the suit would have gone for trial. However, a few more events took place. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiffs filed I.A.No.35 of 2019 seeking an interim injunction and on contest it was granted in favour of the plaintiffs. Sole defendant preferred C.M.A.No.10 of 2019 before learned Principal District Court, Rajamahendravaram. It was at that stage the sole defendant filed a memo whereunder she withdrew her contest in the suit and submitted herself for a decree. Before the trial Court took any proceedings in that regard, Smt. Kandula Satyavathi filed I.A.No.112 of 2020 in O.S.No.32 of 2019 under Order I Rule 10 and Section 151 C.P.C. praying the Court to implead her as second defendant in the suit. Be it noted, this impleading petitioner is the wife of deceased Kandula Veera Raghava Swamy Naidu who executed the agreement for sale in favour of the original defendant. Smt. Kandula Satyavathi seeking her impleadment mentioned that the agreement for sale alleged in the written statement of original defendant and the death of Sri Kandula Veera Raghava Swamy Naidu and the further transactions that took place between his legal representatives including the impleading petitioner and the original defendant are all admitted as true. She stated that on 15.12.2019 the original defendant willingly gave up her rights available under the agreement for sale dated 03.11.2006 and delivered that Ac.1.00 cents of land to this impleading petitioner and received back the entire money that was paid by the original defendant towards part of the sale consideration. Since then, it is claimed, the impleading petitioner has been in possession of that Ac.1.00 cents of land. She further claimed that the remaining extent of plaint schedule property belonged to her and she has been in possession of the property. Since then, it is claimed, the impleading petitioner has been in possession of that Ac.1.00 cents of land. She further claimed that the remaining extent of plaint schedule property belonged to her and she has been in possession of the property. It has to be mentioned that all the averments made in her impleading petition with reference to tracing of original title till the time of this suit are similar to the averments in the written statement filed by the original defendant. In fact, in the grounds of this revision at page No.3 even the revision petitioners have endorsed that the contentions raised by the original defendant and contentions raised by the impleading petitioner are one and the same. 9. Resisting the impleadment, plaintiffs filed their counter. After due hearing and enquiry, the learned trial Court allowed the application and permitted Smt. Kandula Satyavathi to join the litigation and plaintiffs were directed to array her as defendant No.2 in the suit. Grieved by it, plaintiffs have come up with this revision. The forceful contentions of the revision petitioners are that: Plaintiffs being dominus litis they cannot be compelled to fight as against someone who is not chosen by them. As the original defendant submitted for a decree, there shall be no scope for impleading another party to the suit. The various claims of title and possession raised either in the written statement or in the impleading petition are incorrect. The impleading petitioner by joining the litigation would enlarge the scope of the suit and that is impermissible and that shall be a reason to avoid impleadment. Learned trial Court failed to appreciate the facts and failed to appreciate the law. The title claimed by the impleading petitioner cannot be decided in a suit for injunction. For these reasons, the revision petitioners seek to upset the impugned order. 10. Learned counsel for revision petitioners in support of their contentions cited Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, (1992) 2 SCC 524 . That is a case where Sri Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal obtained a dealership agreement and gained possession over a service station erected by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. He made certain constructions. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay issued a notice for demolition of certain parts of the structures as they were considered as unauthorized constructions. Challenging that notice Sri Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal filed the suit against the Municipal Corporation. He made certain constructions. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay issued a notice for demolition of certain parts of the structures as they were considered as unauthorized constructions. Challenging that notice Sri Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal filed the suit against the Municipal Corporation. It was in that suit Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited sought impleadment alleging that the disputed structures are unauthorized. Considering the nature of the litigation and the prayer made in the suit, their Lordships observed that Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited is neither a necessary nor a proper party and could not be impleaded. Thus, the ratio is to permit a party to join the litigation only if the said party is a necessary party to decide the cause raised in the suit. 11. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that: The case of the original defendant and the case of the impleading petitioner are one and the same. The original defendant was given permissive possession by the impleading petitioner and since the original petitioner gave back the possession, the possession has been once again gained by the impleading petitioner and the suit for injunction is a suit concerning possession and therefore, in the absence of the impleading petitioner the questions concerning rival possessions raised in the suit cannot be decided and therefore, impleading petitioner is a necessary party. Learned trial Court gave appropriate reasons in allowing the petition and the order under challenge is in accordance with law and need not be revised. 12. Having considered the facts on record and the submissions on both sides, the following aspects are to be stated: Plaintiffs averred their title over the immovable property and asserted their possession over it and gave several factual details to justify the title they stated and the possession they asserted. The suit was filed on the premise that the original defendant was disturbing the peaceful possession of plaintiffs. It was with a view to protect their possession from the onslaught of the original defendant, the plaintiffs sought only a permanent injunction. The sole defendant filed a written statement which also essentially raised claims of title adverse to the plaintiffs and possession adverse to the plaintiffs. Original defendant asserted possession in herself and stated that she obtained possession under an agreement for sale obtained from the original owners of the property. Thus, the pleadings on both sides brought to the fore rival questions of title and possession. Original defendant asserted possession in herself and stated that she obtained possession under an agreement for sale obtained from the original owners of the property. Thus, the pleadings on both sides brought to the fore rival questions of title and possession. As the pleadings on both sides indicate multiple transactions, the question that may fall for consideration before the trial Court would require the trial Court in the light of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Anathula Sudhakar v. P.Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594 . By virtue of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the stated ruling, it was up to the trial Court to take a decision as to whether it should entertain the suit for bare injunction or it should direct the parties to go for a comprehensive litigation with reference to title. 13. Irrespective of the contest or otherwise by a defendant in a suit, every plaintiff in the suit is under legal obligation to prove the case set out in the plaint and satisfy the Court about their eligibility to secure the prayer in accordance with law. In the pleadings laid before the trial Court by both sides, one important question that arose was about possession of the plaint schedule property. Respective parties were obliged to prove their contentions by production of proper evidence. The original defendant claimed possession from the impleading petitioner and thereafter stated that she delivered back possession to the impleading petitioner. In tune with it, the contention of the impleading petitioner is to the effect that she is in possession of the property. When the pleaded case of the plaintiffs assert their own possession and when the proposed defendant claims possession, the issue concerning possession is still available for consideration by the Court. If the plaintiffs believed that the case set up by the original defendant is false and when the original defendant abandoned her pleadings, there remained nothing for the plaintiffs to feel threatened about their possession of the property and they need not further litigate the suit at all. But that is not the stand of the plaintiffs. They still want to continue the suit and obtain a decree to have their possession recorded by the Court in accordance with law. As long as plaintiffs hold on to such stand, they are obliged to answer the impleading petitioner. But that is not the stand of the plaintiffs. They still want to continue the suit and obtain a decree to have their possession recorded by the Court in accordance with law. As long as plaintiffs hold on to such stand, they are obliged to answer the impleading petitioner. Impleading petitioner is a necessary party for the sole reason that she was to substitute the original defendant and nothing else. As stated earlier, it is undisputed that claim of the impleading petitioner is no different from the claim of the original defendant. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiffs that presence of the impleading petitioner would enlarge the scope of the suit or that the plaintiffs cannot be asked to litigate against someone against whom they are not desirous of litigating are not at all applicable to the facts on record. Learned trial Court rightly concluded saying these aspects. Therefore, it exercised jurisdiction vested with it in accordance with law and appropriate to the facts available on record. No interference is required in this revision. The point is answered against the revision petitioner. 14. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the order dated 23.03.2020 of learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram in I.A.No.112 of 2020 in O.S.No.32 of 2019 stands confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.