IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5595 of 2009 BETWEEN Hanumanthu Rajagopala Rao. ... PETITIONER AND V.V.L. Krishna Rao and others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : PARTY-IN-PERSON Counsel for the Respondents: MR. N.C. DAS0 The Court made the following: ORDER: This revision petition is at the instance of the proposed party, who claims to be a purchaser of the suit schedule property in O.S.No.58 of 2005 under a registered agreement of sale – cum – irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 07.12.2004, who wanted to come on record in the said suit filed by his vendor, as second plaintiff by filing I.A.No.273 of 2009. The said application was rejected by the Court below under the impugned order dated 07.09.2009. 2. Heard the party-in-person in support of the revision and Mr. N.C. Das, learned counsel for the contesting respondents. 3. The facts, in brief, are as follows: (a) Petitioner’s vendor filed O.S.No.58 of 2005 before the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam for perpetual injunction against the contesting respondents i.e. respondents 2 to 13 herein and obtained ex parte injunction in I.A.No.109 of 2005 on 28.01.2005. The subject matter of the suit is an agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.58 cents in Sy.No.312/4 with patta No.678 of Pothinammallayyapalem, Madhurwada village, Chinagadili mandal, Visakhpatnam District. The said ex parte injunction was contested by the respondents and on contest, the same was converted to an order of status quo on 16.02.2005. It appears that the respondents themselves filed their own suit O.S.No.1154 of 2006 also for perpetual injunction against the plaintiff in O.S.No.58 of 2005 as well as the petitioner herein claiming title and possession over the very same suit schedule land. It appears that the petitioner herein purchased the suit schedule land from the plaintiff in O.S.No.58 of 2005 under a registered agreement of sale-cum-irrevocable GPA dated 07.12.2004, which is obviously prior to O.S.No.58 of 2005. (b) Based on the said document, the petitioner filed an application for impleading on 01.11.2006, which appears to have been registered in the registry of the Court below as GR.No.5911 dated 01.11.2006. There is some obscurity, as the records of the Court below stated that the application was returned by the registry with some objections, but who has taken the returned application or that what happened to the said application remains obscure. Petitioner, however, filed the present application being I.A.No.273 of 2009 seeking impleadment in O.S.No.58 of 2005 as plaintiff No.2. The said application, on contest, has been dismissed by the Court below by making several observations. Aggrieved thereby the present revision is filed. 4. It is, no doubt, true that the petitioner’s agreement of sale-cum-GPA, referred to above, is prior to O.S.No.58 of 2005. There is no reference of this agreement of sale-cum-GPA either in the plaint or the affidavit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.58 of 2005. The said suit, therefore, is a matter, which the said plaintiff has to prosecute by taking appropriate steps. Since the petitioner claims to be a registered GPA holder of the said plaintiff, it is one thing to say that the petitioner can prosecute the said suit but it is totally another thing when the present petitioner wants to come on record as plaintiff No.2. To my mind, therefore, the present petitioner cannot hijack the suit filed by some other plaintiff – may be his vendor, for injunction, as it is always open to the petitioner, as a purchaser, to file his own suit for appropriate relief and seek vindication of his rights. The Court below, therefore, was right in not permitting the petitioner to come on record as second plaintiff in O.S.No.58 of 2005 and to that extent the conclusions in the impugned order are not required to be interfered with. 5. However, it has been brought to my notice that the Court below, while dealing with the said implead application of the petitioner, has gone beyond the scope of the said application and made several comments on the pattadar passbook issued to the petitioner’s vendor and the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, on appeal, thereon. The Court below also made a serious comment and almost gave a finding that there is no legal sanctity to the registered agreement of sale – cum- GPA executed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.58 of 2005 in favour of the petitioner. In my view, such sweeping observations and findings of the Court below were totally uncalled for and unsustainable inasmuch as such serious findings on title could have been recorded by the Court below only on recording of evidence during the trial of the suit. The present application was one seeking impleadment of petitioner and while shutting out the petitioner from being impleaded, it was totally incorrect for the Court below to have recorded the findings against the petitioner on his title document. The observations of the Court below on the conduct and character of the petitioner as well as the comments on the order passed by the revenue authorities under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1977 were also wholly uncalled for and unnecessary, as the Court below was only concerned with the application for impleadment moved by the petitioner. 6. All the said observations and findings in the impugned order to the extent indicated above are, therefore, beyond the scope of the implead petition moved by the petitioner before the Court below and as such, shall not come in the way of the petitioner in prosecuting O.S.No.58 of 2005 or defending O.S.No.1154 of 2006. Subject to the above, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J February 3, 2011 DSK