THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 4478 of 2011 DATED: 29.11.2011 Between: Movva Ramakrishna …Petitioner And B.Sarat Gopal and 25 others. …Respondents HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 4478 of 2011 O R D E R : The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.399 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. This revision petition is filed assailing the order dated 14.09.2011 made in I.A.No.532 of 2011 whereunder the respondents 1 to 3 herein were impleaded as defendants 25 to 27. The suit is filed for declaration that the Development Agreement dated 25.02.1993 and General Power of Attorney dated 18.03.1983 are not legal and not enforceable against the plaintiff and further to declare the sale deeds executed by the 1st defendant-4th respondent in favour of defendants 2 to 23-respondents 5 to 26 herein are null and avoid. The case of the plaintiff/revision petitioner is that on the basis of Development Agreement dated 25.02.1993 and the General Power of Attorney dated 18.03.1983, the 1st defendant Thimmaiah sold Acs.3.29 guntas situated in Sy.No.109 1/A situated in Kondapur Village in favour of the 2nd defendant under the sale deed dated 11.01.1996. In turn, 2nd defendant executed Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.22 and 21. They executed sale deeds in favour of defendant No.23 under registered sale deed dated 22.05.2005 and his name was mutated in the revenue records. Under a registered sale deed dated 12.02.2008 executed by the defendant No.23, the land was sold to three others namely respondents 1 to 3 herein. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. As could be seen, the respondents 1 to 3 i.e., the proposed parties are claiming title to the land in question under the registered sale deeds through the defendant No.1 in whose favour the plaintiff had admittedly executed Development Agreement cum General Power of Attorney. Hence the respondents 1 to 3 herein are proper and necessary parties for deciding the issue in controversy completely and effectually. Therefore, the Court below has rightly allowed their implead petition and the order under revision, does not suffer from any error of law or fact. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 29.11.2011 KLP