THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3357 of 2007 Oral order: This revision is directed against the order dated 2-7-2007 of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur in I.A.No. 150 of 2007 in O.S.No. 2103 of 2004. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff who filed the suit against the respondents 1 and 2 herein for declaration of title to the plaint schedule property and for other incidental reliefs. He filed interlocutory applications in I.A.No. 677 and 678 of 2004 seeking interim injunction, which are stated to be pending. The plaintiff thereafter filed I.A.No. 150 of 2007 seeking to implead the 3rd respondent herein as the 3rd defendant in the suit; amendment of the pleadings to describe the 3rd respondent; to allege alienation of the plaint schedule property by the defendants in a series of transactions culminating in alienation in favour of the 3rd defendant; and seeking the relief of cancellation of a sale deed said to have been executed by one Telukutla Hanumayamma in favour of the proposed 3rd defendant. The above application was rejected by the court below on the ground that except a bald allegation that one Boggavarapu Venkata Nagendra Vara Prasad had purchased the plaint schedule property and again sold the same to Hanumayamma under a registered sale deed, the petitioner failed to file any documents to establish prima facie material to that effect and also for the reason that the petitioner is seeking relief of cancellation of a sale deed without any date or registration number of the document, which is pleaded to be a registered sale deed. The application was rejected on the ground of vague pleadings. The affidavit filed in support of I.A.No. 150 of 2007 is illustrative of vague and unspecific pleadings and is stricken with the vice of ambiguity and total lack of clarity. We reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the said affidavit: “ I sincerely submits that I filed the above the suit against the respondents/defendants for declaration that I am the absolute owner to the plaint schedule property, for costs and other reliefs. Myself also filed I.A.No. 677/2004 and I.A.No. 678/2004, in the present suit seeking interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from in any way alienating the plaint schedule property and from dispossessing me from the plaint schedule property. The Hon’ble Court was pleased to order notice to the respondents/defendants on the said application. I further submit that, having come to know the filing of the suit and the said petition, the defendants by playing fraud alienated the property in favour of Telukutla Hanumayamma. Myself having come to know that the respondents/defendants alienated the property, filed a petition U/Or 1, Rule-10 CPC requesting this Hon’ble Court to implead the purchased i.e. Boggavarapu Venkata Nagendra Vara Prasad of the plaint schedule property who purchased the same from the vendee of the 1st and 2nd respondents (defendants) in I.A.No. 26/2006. The said purchaser having engaged in advocate filed this counter informing this Hon’ble Court that he had once again sold the property to the vendee of the respondents i.e., Telukutla Hanumayamma, as such myself not pressed the petition. The vendee of the respondents/defendants having purchased the property from Boggavarapu Venkata Nagendra Vara Prasad, once again alienated the plaint schedule property by executing a registered sale deed in favour of the proposed party/3d respondent. Hence in the above circumstances, it is very much essential that the purchaser of the plaint schedule property under registered sale deed is necessary party to the proceedings and as such he may be implead as one of the parties as 3rd defendant in the suit. Hence it is prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to permit me to implead the 3rd respondent/proposed party as 3rd defendant tin the main suit by amending the plaint consequently as follows: TO ADD: 1st page, cause title and “Regula Veeraiah” as 3rd Defendant. TO ADD: 1st page, 2nd para-description of the defendants add“Regula Veeraiah, son of Paramaiah, Hindu, aged about 42 years, occupation not known, r/o D.No.20-18-205, 9th lane, D.S.Nagar, Etukuru Road, Guntur” as 3rd defendant. TO ADD: 3rd page, after para 3 (e) add “The plaintiff further submit that to deprive the plaintiff’s right the 1st and 2nd defendants said to have been alienated the plaint schedule property to Telukutla Hanumayamma later the said Telukutla Hanumayamma once again alienated the property to the 3rd defendant is illegal and not maintainable under Law: as para 3(e)-1. TO ADD: In page-5, Para-7 add “for cancellation of the sale deed executed by Telukutla Hanumayamma in favour of the 3rd defendant” as Col.d. TO ADD: in page-5, Para-7 Col.d as “e” TO ADD: in page-5, Para-7, Col-3 as “f” and pass necessary orders in the interest of justice.” In view of the wholly vague pleadings in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No. 150 of 2007 seeking impleading of the 3rd respondent herein as the 3rd defendant in the suit and the total absence of specificity while seeking the relief of cancellation of what is pleaded to be a registered sale deed, even without furnishing the date of registration and the registration particulars or other minimal details as to the document, this Court discerns no error either in the application of law or in the exercise of discretion by the Court below in rejecting the application, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. There are no merits. The revision is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 24th June, 2010. GRR