ORDE R : Ninala Jayasurya, J. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 07.02.2024 in I.A.No.313 of 2021 in O.S.No.36 of 2019 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Razole. 2. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the said suit, which is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.24,34,666/-. In the suit, the petitioner filed a written statement, inter alia, stating that the 1st respondent-plaintiff had no capacity to lend such a huge amount and that one Mr.Mutyala Srinivasa Rao is behind the litigation and the suit is filed at his behest with an intention to grab the property of the petitioner. A plea was also taken that the suit promissory note is a forged and fabricated document. Seeking to implead the said Srinivasa Rao as a party to the suit proceedings I.A.No.313 of 2021 is filed under Order I Rule 10 read with Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and Section 151 of CPC. The said application was opposed by the respondent / plaintiff. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the learned trial Court erred in dismissing the I.A. without considering the matter in its proper perspective. He submits that in a light of the specific defence taken in the written statement with reference to Mr. Mutyala Srinivasa Rao, proposed party, the Trial Court ought to have allowed the application. He submits that unless the proposed party is impleaded as defendant, the petitioner herein would not be in a position to prove the defence taken in the written statement. He also contends that no prejudice would be caused, if the proposed respondent is added as defendant to the suit proceedings. 4. This Court has considered the submissions made and on appreciation of the matter is not persuaded to interfere with the order passed by learned Trial Court. While dismissing the I.A. referred to above, the learned Trial Court inter alia opined that the defendant cannot request to add any person as a defendant in the suit of the plaintiff; that the defendant can examine any person in his evidence as such, he cannot ask the plaintiff to add any person in the suit instituted by the plaintiff. The conclusion / reasoning is well founded. It is needless to state that the plaintiff is the dominus litis. The conclusion / reasoning is well founded. It is needless to state that the plaintiff is the dominus litis. This Court see no reason to interfere with the well-considered order, which is under challenge. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. 6. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.