IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH (9TH) DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRP No.2531 of 2009 & CRP No.2532 of 2009 Between: Smt. Moula Bee & another … Petitioners And: V Padma & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition Nos.2531 & 2532 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: These two revision petitions are directed against the common order dated 07.04.1999 in IA Nos.691 and 692 of 2008 in OS No.750 of 2003 on the file of the V Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), R R district, wherein, the said applications filed by the petitioners herein for impleadment of the respondents 3 and 4 herein, as defendants 3 and 4 and for consequential amendment of the plaint, were dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioners herein filed suit against the respondents 1 and 2 for cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 19.10.2002 executed in favour of first defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property of 330 sq. yards, situated at Vijayapuri Colony, Uppal. The defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement, contesting the suit. Necessary issues were settled. The trial of the suit commenced and PWs.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. Thereafter, chief affidavit of DW.1 was filed. At this juncture, the present applications were filed by the plaintiffs for impleadment of defendants 3 and 4 on the ground that the properties are alleged to have been alienated in their favour even prior to filing of the suit. The plaintiffs, therefore seek to amend the plaint by adding additional relief of cancellation of the sale deeds dated 29.05.2003 in favour of the proposed defendants 3 and 4. 4. The trial Court dismissed the said applications holding that the proposed defendants 3 and 4 are not proper and necessary parties, as the subject matter of the suit is only with regard to the legality of the sale deed in favour of first defendant. 5. It is to be noted that the alienations in favour of proposed defendants 3 and 4 are said to have taken place on 29.05.2003 i.e., about two months prior to filing of the suit on 25.07.2003. The alienations are in respect of the same property, which is subject matter of the suit. Though, the defendants 1 and 2 referred in their written statement about the alienations, they have not disclosed the names and particulars of purchasers except stating that the property was alienated in favour of third parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that steps could not therefore be taken immediately after filing of the written statement for impleadment of the alienees and it is only when the names of the alienees were disclosed in the chief affidavit of DW.1, the petitioners have filed the present applications for impleadment of the alienees. Inasmuch as the subject matter of the suit is also subject matter of the alleged alienations in favour of the proposed defendants 3 and 4 and the said alienations have taken place even prior to filing of the suit, it cannot be said that the proposed defendants 3 and 4 are not necessary or proper parties to the suit. In order to have comprehensive and effective adjudication of the dispute between all the parties who are interested in the subject matter of the suit, the presence of the proposed defendants 3 and 4 is very much required. In that view of the matter, the impugned common order dismissing the applications for impleadment and for consequential amendment, is held unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside and consequently, both the petitions i.e., IA Nos.691 & 692 of 2008 in OS No.750 of 2003 are allowed. The petitioners/ plaintiffs are permitted to implead the proposed defendants 3 and 4 and to make consequential amendment as proposed. 6. In the result, both the revision petitions are allowed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 09.03.2011 bss