IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1670 of 2011 Between: The District Collector, Nalgonda & others. … Petitioners And Ganta Satyanarayana & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: AGP for Arbitration Counsel for the respondents: Sri P. Kasi Nageswara Rao This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1670 of 2011 ORDER:- This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order, dated 01.03.2011, in I.A.No.772 of 2010 in O.S.No.35 of 2008 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet. The petitioners, who were the third parties to the suit filed by respondent No.1 against respondent Nos.2 to 9 for specific performance of agreement of sale in respect of immovable property, were impleaded at the instance of respondent No.1 – plaintiff. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for impleadment, the plaintiff inter alia stated that he has returned from USA in the month of February 2010, that after his return he has come to know that a road was formed in the schedule land and that his enquiries revealed that the petitioners herein have engaged the people, who executed the work. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the petitioners inter alia stating that they are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. The Court below, without proper application of mind, has allowed the implead application. In my opinion, respondent No.1 – plaintiff has miserably failed to make out as to how the presence of the petitioners herein is necessary for proper and effectual adjudication of the dispute raised in the suit. As noted above, the suit is filed for specific performance of agreement of sale by respondent No.1 against respondent Nos.2 to 9. Therefore, the petitioners, who are public servants, are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit for proper and effectual adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. Even assuming that at their instance the road was laid over the suit schedule property, unless a properly constituted suit is filed claiming appropriate relief against the petitioners, they cannot be impleaded in a suit filed for specific performance of agreement of sale involving private parties. The Court below has failed to notice these fundamental aspects and instead has made a perfunctory approach by making the cryptic observation that the presence of the petitioners is necessary for disposal of the suit. The order of the Court below thus suffers from serious jurisdictional error and material illegality. Accordingly, the order under revision is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the Civil Revision Petition in the manner indicated above, CRPMP.No.2387 of 2011 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 05.08.2011 ES