HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5367 OF 2009 DATE:31-12-2009 BETWEEN Kaladi Aggiramudu (died) per L.Rs. & others …Petitioners AND Datla Venkata Krishnam Raju & Others. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5367 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India is directed by the defendants1,3 and 4 assailing the orders of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, dated 26.10.2009 dismissing I.A.No.1418 of 2008 in O.S.No.195 of 2006 filed under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. to add respondents 3 and 4 as defendants 5 and 6 in the suit. Originally, the first respondent herein instituted the above suit against the defendants 1 and 2 for specific performance of an agreement of sale. Since the first defendant died, the petitioners herein came on record as defendants 3 and 4. Later, the petitioners herein filed the impugned I.A. contending that the land which was subject-matter of agreement of sale is the Government Porambok land which was assigned to the fishermen for cultivation and therefore, no decree as such can be passed for specific performance of agreement of sale. The Village Secretary of Polekurru, who was summoned to produce the revenue records pertaining to the suit schedule property, was examined as D.W.3 and he admitted that all the lands covered by Exs.X.4 to X.14 are government lands. This Court in Bandikata Satyavathi v. Bandikata Venkata Rao (2001 (1) ALT 338) categorically held that the procedure under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. should always be adopted where it is really necessary for a complete adjudication under the questions involved in the suit and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 prohibits the transfer of assigned lands. As seen from the record, the Village Revenue Officer, Polekurru Village on being summoned by the petitioners, was examined as D.W.3 who produced the relevant records pertaining to the suit schedule property and in the chief-examination he categorically deposed that all the lands covered by Exs.X.4 to X.14 are government lands. If that be the case, whether the lands are assigned lands granted patta in favour of the petitioners- defendants has to be gone into in the main suit to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Time and again this Court held that even at the time of execution of the decree, an objection can be raised as to the executability of the decree. Prima facie, in view of the evidence of D.W.3, to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings, the proposed defendants 5 and 6 i.e. the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Tahsildar, Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District have to be added. In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustainable. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and I.A.No.1418 of 2009 stands allowed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. DECEMBER 31, 2009 Tsr.